Serbia Multiple Indicator Cluster Survey 2010

Publication date: 2011

PublisherPublisher UNICEF BelgradeUNICEF Belgrade For publisherFor publisher Judita ReichenbergJudita Reichenberg Area RepresentativeArea Representative ProofreadingProofreading Kevin ByrneKevin Byrne DesignDesign Rastko ToholjRastko Toholj Cover photoCover photo UNICEF Serbia/Tomislav PeternekUNICEF Serbia/Tomislav Peternek Printed byPrinted by Radunić, BelgradeRadunić, Belgrade Print run 300Print run 300 ISBN 978-86-82471-90-5ISBN 978-86-82471-90-5 Published in December, 2011Published in December, 2011 The Multiple Indicator Cluster Survey (MICS) in Serbia was carried out in 2010 by the Statistical The Multiple Indicator Cluster Survey (MICS) in Serbia was carried out in 2010 by the Statistical Office of the Republic of Serbia. Financial and technical support was provided by the United Office of the Republic of Serbia. Financial and technical support was provided by the United Nations Children’s Fund (UNICEF).Nations Children’s Fund (UNICEF). MICS is an international household survey programme developed by UNICEF. The Republic of MICS is an international household survey programme developed by UNICEF. The Republic of Serbia MICS was conducted as part of the fourth global round of MICS surveys (MICS4). MICS Serbia MICS was conducted as part of the fourth global round of MICS surveys (MICS4). MICS provides up-to-date information on the situation of children and women and measures key provides up-to-date information on the situation of children and women and measures key indicators that allow countries to monitor progress towards the Millennium Development Goals indicators that allow countries to monitor progress towards the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) and other internationally agreed upon commitments. Additional information on the (MDGs) and other internationally agreed upon commitments. Additional information on the global MICS project may be obtained from www.childinfo.org. global MICS project may be obtained from www.childinfo.org. Suggested citationSuggested citation Statistical Office of the Republic of Serbia. 2011. Serbia Multiple Indicator Cluster Survey 2010, Statistical Office of the Republic of Serbia. 2011. Serbia Multiple Indicator Cluster Survey 2010, Belgrade, Republic of Serbia: Statistical Office of the Republic of Serbia.Belgrade, Republic of Serbia: Statistical Office of the Republic of Serbia. AAcknowledgementscknowledgements A number of people contributed to the development of this survey and report with their professional knowledge, A number of people contributed to the development of this survey and report with their professional knowledge, personal enthusiasm and commitment to ensure a better life for all children in Serbia.personal enthusiasm and commitment to ensure a better life for all children in Serbia. As in previous MICS rounds, the survey concept, including improvements and innovations, was created and led by As in previous MICS rounds, the survey concept, including improvements and innovations, was created and led by UNICEF’s Global MICS team. Ivana Bjelic and Turgay Unalan gave important technical support on data processing UNICEF’s Global MICS team. Ivana Bjelic and Turgay Unalan gave important technical support on data processing and analysis. Siraj Mahmudlu supported the process throughout and made constructive contributions to the draft and analysis. Siraj Mahmudlu supported the process throughout and made constructive contributions to the draft report. The Global MICS process was led by Attila Hancioglu, whose leadership, vast experience and endless patience, report. The Global MICS process was led by Attila Hancioglu, whose leadership, vast experience and endless patience, were of critical importance in overcoming challenges during the survey and the report generation. were of critical importance in overcoming challenges during the survey and the report generation. For the second time, the Director of the Statistical Office of the Republic of Serbia, Dragan Vukmirovic, committed For the second time, the Director of the Statistical Office of the Republic of Serbia, Dragan Vukmirovic, committed his institution to a partnership with UNICEF in implementing the Multiple Indicator Cluster Survey in Serbia. his institution to a partnership with UNICEF in implementing the Multiple Indicator Cluster Survey in Serbia. His team, ably led by Dragana Djokovic–Papic, demonstrated great knowledge, flexibility and enthusiasm. Mirjana His team, ably led by Dragana Djokovic–Papic, demonstrated great knowledge, flexibility and enthusiasm. Mirjana Ogrizovic–Brasanac meticulously coordinated the sampling, while Jovanka Stojanovic and Vladica Jankovic Ogrizovic–Brasanac meticulously coordinated the sampling, while Jovanka Stojanovic and Vladica Jankovic demonstrated commitment and professionalism in completing each phase of the survey with the highest possible demonstrated commitment and professionalism in completing each phase of the survey with the highest possible quality and in a timely manner. All the survey teams, including co-ordinators, field staff and data entry staff, carried quality and in a timely manner. All the survey teams, including co-ordinators, field staff and data entry staff, carried out their work diligently and efficiently.out their work diligently and efficiently. The UNICEF Serbia team, led by Judita Reichenberg and Lesley Miller, patiently provided their comments, expertise The UNICEF Serbia team, led by Judita Reichenberg and Lesley Miller, patiently provided their comments, expertise and support during all phases of the implementation of MICS4. Goran Milovanovic, as the MICS4 consultant, and support during all phases of the implementation of MICS4. Goran Milovanovic, as the MICS4 consultant, also provided significant assistance. Overall country-level coordination of the survey was competently managed by also provided significant assistance. Overall country-level coordination of the survey was competently managed by Aleksandra Jovic.Aleksandra Jovic. The support of line ministries and experts, through inputs to the questionnaire design and to the final report The support of line ministries and experts, through inputs to the questionnaire design and to the final report was very helpful. Particularly valuable was the support of the Social Inclusion and Poverty Reduction Unit of the was very helpful. Particularly valuable was the support of the Social Inclusion and Poverty Reduction Unit of the Government of Serbia, which participated in all stages of MICS4 as part of the Technical Committee. Government of Serbia, which participated in all stages of MICS4 as part of the Technical Committee. Finally, it must also be noted that the data collection would not have been possible without the individuals and Finally, it must also be noted that the data collection would not have been possible without the individuals and households of Serbia, including those living in Roma settlements, who generously opened their homes and gave their households of Serbia, including those living in Roma settlements, who generously opened their homes and gave their time to the realization of this survey.time to the realization of this survey. List of Abbreviations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1111 Summary Table of Findings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1313 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1717 I INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2323 BackgroundBackground. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2323 Survey ObjectivesSurvey Objectives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2424 II SAMPLE AND SURVEY METHODOLOGY . . . . . . . . . 2525 Sample Design of the Serbia SampleSample Design of the Serbia Sample . . . . . . . . . . . 2525 Sample Design of the Roma Settlements SampleSample Design of the Roma Settlements Sample . . . . . . 2525 QuestionnairesQuestionnaires . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2626 Training and FieldworkTraining and Fieldwork. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2727 Data ProcessingData Processing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2727 The Report StructureThe Report Structure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2727 How to Read the TablesHow to Read the Tables. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2828 IIIA SERBIA SAMPLE COVERAGE AND THE CHARACTERISTICS OF HOUSEHOLDS AND RESPONDENTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2929 Sample CoverageSample Coverage . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2929 Characteristics of HouseholdsCharacteristics of Households . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3131 Characteristics of Female Respondents 15–49 YearsCharacteristics of Female Respondents 15–49 Years of Age, Male Respondents 15–29 Years of Age andof Age, Male Respondents 15–29 Years of Age and Children Under-5 Children Under-5 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3333 Children’s Living ArrangementsChildren’s Living Arrangements . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3737 IIIB ROMA SETTLEMENTS SAMPLE COVERAGE AND THE CHARACTERISTICS OF HOUSEHOLDS AND RESPONDENTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3939 Sample CoverageSample Coverage . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3939 Characteristics of HouseholdsCharacteristics of Households . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4040 Characteristics of Female Respondents 15–49 YearsCharacteristics of Female Respondents 15–49 Years of Age, Male Respondents 15–29 Years of Age andof Age, Male Respondents 15–29 Years of Age and Children Under-5 Children Under-5 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4242 Children’s living arrangements in Roma SettlementsChildren’s living arrangements in Roma Settlements . . . . 4545 IV CHILD MORTALITY. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4747 V NUTRITION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4949 Nutritional StatusNutritional Status . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4949 Breastfeeding and Infant and Young Child FeedingBreastfeeding and Infant and Young Child Feeding. . . . . 5656 Low Birth WeightLow Birth Weight . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7070 VI CHILD HEALTH . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7272 Oral Rehydration TreatmentOral Rehydration Treatment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7272 Care Seeking and Antibiotic Treatment of PneumoniaCare Seeking and Antibiotic Treatment of Pneumonia . . . 8282 Solid Fuel UseSolid Fuel Use . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8787 VII WATER AND SANITATION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9191 Use of Improved Water SourcesUse of Improved Water Sources . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9191 Use of Improved SanitationUse of Improved Sanitation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 100100 HandwashingHandwashing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 108108 CONTENTSCONTENTS VIII REPRODUCTIVE HEALTH . . . . . . . . . . . . . 112112FertilityFertility . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 112112Contraception Contraception . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 117117 Unmet NeedUnmet Need . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 122122 Antenatal CareAntenatal Care . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 126126 Assistance at DeliveryAssistance at Delivery . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 132132 Place of DeliveryPlace of Delivery . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 135135 IX CHILD DEVELOPMENT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 137137 Early Childhood Education and LearningEarly Childhood Education and Learning . . . . . . . . 137137 Early Childhood Development Early Childhood Development . . . . . . . . . . . . 149149 X LITERACY AND EDUCATION . . . . . . . . . . . . . 152152 Literacy among Young Women and MenLiteracy among Young Women and Men . . . . . . . . 152152 School ReadinessSchool Readiness . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 155155 Primary and Secondary School ParticipationPrimary and Secondary School Participation . . . . . . 157157 XI CHILD PROTECTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 171171 Birth RegistrationBirth Registration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 171171 Child Discipline Child Discipline . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 173173 Early Marriage Early Marriage . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 176176 Attitudes toward Domestic ViolenceAttitudes toward Domestic Violence . . . . . . . . . . 185185 XII HIV/AIDS AND SEXUAL BEHAVIOUR . . . . . . . . . 190190 Knowledge about HIV TransmissionKnowledge about HIV Transmission and Misconceptions about HIV/AIDSand Misconceptions about HIV/AIDS . . . . . . . . . 190190 Accepting Attitudes toward PeopleAccepting Attitudes toward People Living with HIV/AIDS Living with HIV/AIDS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 203203 Knowledge of a Place for HIV Testing, CounsellingKnowledge of a Place for HIV Testing, Counselling and Testing during Antenatal Careand Testing during Antenatal Care . . . . . . . . . . . 208208 Sexual Behaviour Related to HIV Transmission Sexual Behaviour Related to HIV Transmission . . . . . 218218 XIII ACCESS TO MASS MEDIA AND USE OF INFORMATION/COMMUNICATION TECHNOLOGY . . . . . 234234 Access to Mass MediaAccess to Mass Media . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 234234 Use of Information/Communication Technology Use of Information/Communication Technology . . . . 239239 XIV SUBJECTIVE WELL-BEING . . . . . . . . . . . . . 243243 APPENDICES Appendix A. Sample DesignAppendix A. Sample Design Sample Design for the Serbia SampleSample Design for the Serbia Sample . . . . . . . . . 257257 Sample Design for the Roma Settlements SampleSample Design for the Roma Settlements Sample . . . . 261261 Appendix B. List of Personnel Involved in the SurveyAppendix B. List of Personnel Involved in the Survey . . 264264 Appendix C. Estimates of Sampling ErrorsAppendix C. Estimates of Sampling Errors Estimates of Sampling Errors for the Serbia SampleEstimates of Sampling Errors for the Serbia Sample . . . 266266 Estimates of Sampling Errors for the RomaEstimates of Sampling Errors for the Roma Settlements SampleSettlements Sample . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 275275 Appendix D. Data Quality TablesAppendix D. Data Quality Tables Data Quality Tables — Serbia SampleData Quality Tables — Serbia Sample . . . . . . . . . 280280 Data Quality Tables — Roma Settlements SampleData Quality Tables — Roma Settlements Sample . . . 291291 Appendix E. MICS4 Indicators: NumeratorsAppendix E. MICS4 Indicators: Numerators and Denominatorsand Denominators . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 300300 Appendix F. QuestionnairesAppendix F. Questionnaires . . . . . . . . . . . . . 305305 Appendix G. ISCED TablesAppendix G. ISCED Tables . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 345345 30 Table HH.1 Results of household, women’s, men’s and under-5 interviews, Serbia, 2010 31 Table HH.2 Household age distribution by sex, Serbia, 2010 32 Table HH.3 Household composition, Serbia, 2010 34 Table HH.4 Women’s background characteristics, Serbia, 2010 35 Table HH.4M Men’s background characteristics, Serbia, 2010 36 Table HH.5 Under-5’s background characteristics, Serbia, 2010 37 Table HH.6 Children’s living arrangements and orphanhood, Serbia, 2010 39 Table HH.1R Results of household, women’s, men’s and under-5 interviews, Roma Settlements, 2010 40 Table HH.2R Household age distribution by sex, Roma Settlements, 2010 41 Table HH.3R Household composition, Roma Settlements, 2010 42 Table HH.4R Women’s background characteristics, Roma Settlements, 2010 43 Table HH.4R.M Men’s background characteristics, Roma Settlements, 2010 44 Table HH.5R Under-5’s background characteristics, Roma Settlements, 2010 45 Table HH.6R Children’s living arrangements and orphanhood, Roma Settlements, 2010 47 Table CM.1R Children ever born, children surviving and proportion dead, Roma Settlements, 2010 48 Table CM.2R Child mortality, Roma Settlements, 2010 50 Table NU.1 Nutritional status of children, Serbia, 2010 52 Table NU.1 (a) Nutritional status of children (based on NCHS/CDC/WHO International Reference Population), Serbia, 2010 53 Table NU.1R Nutritional status of children, Roma Settlements, 2010 55 Table NU.1R (a) Nutritional status of children (based on NCHS/CDC/WHO International Reference Population), Roma Settlements, 2010 56 Table NU.2 Initial breastfeeding, Serbia, 2010 57 Table NU.3 Breastfeeding, Serbia, 2010 59 Table NU.4 Duration of breastfeeding, Serbia, 2010 60 Table NU.5 Age-appropriate breastfeeding, Serbia, 2010 61 Table NU.6 Introduction of solid, semi-solid or soft foods, Serbia, 2010 62 Table NU.7 Minimum meal frequency, Serbia, 2010 63 Table NU.8 Bottle feeding, Serbia, 2010 64 Table NU.2R Initial breastfeeding, Roma Settlements, 2010 65 Table NU.3R Breastfeeding, Roma Settlements, 2010 66 Table NU.4R Duration of breastfeeding, Roma Settlements, 2010 67 Table NU.5R Age-appropriate breastfeeding, Roma Settlements, 2010 68 Table NU.6R Introduction of solid, semi-solid or soft foods, Roma Settlements, 2010 68 Table NU.7R Minimum meal frequency, Roma Settlements, 2010 List of TablesList of Tables 69 Table NU.8R Bottle feeding, Roma Settlements, 2010 70 Table NU.9 Low birth weight infants, Serbia, 2010 71 Table NU.9R Low birth weight infants, Roma Settlements, 2010 73 Table CH.1 Oral rehydration solutions and recommended homemade fluids, Serbia, 2010 74-75 Table CH.2 Feeding practices during diarrhoea, Serbia, 2010 76-77 Table CH.3 Oral rehydration therapy with continued feeding and other treatments, Serbia, 2010 78 Table CH.1R Oral rehydration solutions and recommended homemade fluids, Roma Settlements, 2010 79 Table CH.2R Feeding practices during diarrhoea, Roma Settlements, 2010 80-81 Table CH.3R Oral rehydration therapy with continued feeding and other treatments, Roma Settlements, 2010 82-83 Table CH.4 Care seeking for suspected pneumonia and antibiotic use during suspected pneumonia, Serbia, 2010 84 Table CH.5 Knowledge of the two danger signs of pneumonia, Serbia, 2010 85 Table CH.4R Care seeking for suspected pneumonia and antibiotic use during suspected pneumonia, Roma Settlements, 2010 86 Table CH.5R Knowledge of the two danger signs of pneumonia, Roma Settlements, 2010 87 Table CH.6 Solid fuel use, Serbia, 2010 88 Table CH.7 Solid fuel use by place of cooking, Serbia, 2010 89 Table CH.6R Solid fuel use, Roma Settlements, 2010 90 Table CH.7R Solid fuel use by place of cooking, Roma Settlements, 2010 92-93 Table WS.1 Use of improved water sources, Serbia, 2010 92-93 Table WS.2 Household water treatment, Serbia, 2010 94 Table WS.3 Time to source of drinking water, Serbia, 2010 95 Table WS.4 Person collecting water, Serbia, 2010 96-97 Table WS.1R Use of improved water sources, Roma Settlements, 2010 97 Table WS.2R Household water treatment, Roma Settlements, 2010 98 Table WS.3R Time to source of drinking water, Roma Settlements, 2010 99 Table WS.4R Person collecting water, Roma Settlements, 2010 100 Table WS.5 Types of sanitation facilities, Serbia, 2010 101 Table WS.6 Use and sharing of sanitation facilities, Serbia, 2010 102 Table WS.7 Disposal of child’s faeces, Serbia, 2010 103 Table WS.8 Drinking water and sanitation ladders, Serbia, 2010 104 Table WS.5R Types of sanitation facilities, Roma Settlements, 2010 105 Table WS.6R Use and sharing of sanitation facilities, Roma Settlements, 2010 106 Table WS.7R Disposal of child’s faeces, Roma Settlements, 2010 107 Table WS.8R Drinking water and sanitation ladders, Roma Settlements, 2010 108 Table WS.9 Water and soap at place for handwashing, Serbia, 2010 109 Table WS.10 Availability of soap, Serbia, 2010 110 Table WS.9R Water and soap at place for handwashing, Roma Settlements, 2010 111 Table WS.10R Availability of soap, Roma Settlements, 2010 112 Table RH.1 Adolescent birth rate and total fertility rate, Serbia, 2010 113 Table RH.2 Early childbearing, Serbia, 2010 114 Table RH.3 Trends in early childbearing, Serbia, 2010 115 Table RH.1R Adolescent birth rate and total fertility rate, Roma Settlements, 2010 115 Table RH.2R Early childbearing, Roma Settlements, 2010 116 Table RH.3R Trends in early childbearing, Roma Settlements, 2010 118-119 Table RH.4 Use of contraception, Serbia, 2010 120-121 Table RH.4R Use of contraception, Roma Settlements, 2010 123 Table RH.5 Unmet need for contraception, Serbia, 2010 124 Table RH.5R Unmet need for contraception, Roma Settlements, 2010 126 Table RH.6 Antenatal care coverage, Serbia, 2010 127 Table RH.7 Number of antenatal care visits, Serbia, 2010 128 Table RH.8 Content of antenatal care, Serbia, 2010 129 Table RH.6R Antenatal care coverage, Roma Settlements, 2010 130 Table RH.7R Number of antenatal care visits, Roma Settlements, 2010 131 Table RH.8R Content of antenatal care, Roma Settlements, 2010 132 Table RH.9 Assistance during delivery, Serbia, 2010 134 Table RH.9R Assistance during delivery, Roma Settlements, 2010 135 Table RH.10 Place of delivery, Serbia, 2010 136 Table RH.10R Place of delivery, Roma Settlements, 2010 137 Table CD.1 Early childhood education, Serbia, 2010 138-139 Table CD.1A Early child development, Serbia, 2010 140 Table CD.2 Support for learning, Serbia, 2010 141 Table CD.3 Learning materials, Serbia, 2010 142 Table CD.4 Inadequate care, Serbia, 2010 143 Table CD.1R Early childhood education, Roma Settlements, 2010 144-145 Table CD.1R.A Early child development, Roma Settlements, 2010 146 Table CD.2R Support for learning, Roma Settlements, 2010 147 Table CD.3R Learning materials, Roma Settlements, 2010 148 Table CD.4R Inadequate care, Roma Settlements, 2010 150 Table CD.5 Early child development index, Serbia, 2010 151 Table CD.5R Early child development index, Roma Settlements, 2010 152 Table ED.1 Literacy among young women, Serbia, 2010 153 Table ED.1M Literacy among young men, Serbia, 2010 154 Table ED.1R Literacy among young women, Roma Settlements, 2010 154 Table ED.1R.M Literacy among young men, Roma Settlements, 2010 155 Table ED.2 School readiness, Serbia, 2010 156 Table ED.2R School readiness, Roma Settlements, 2010 157 Table ED.3 Primary school entry, Serbia, 2010 158 Table ED.4 Primary school attendance, Serbia, 2010 159 Table ED.5 Secondary school attendance, Serbia, 2010 160 Table ED.6 Children reaching last grade of primary school, Serbia, 2010 161 Table ED.7 Primary school completion and transition to secondary school, Serbia, 2010 162 Table ED.7A Net primary school completion and transition to secondary school, Serbia, 2010 163 Table ED.8 Education gender parity, Serbia, 2010 164 Table ED.3R Primary school entry, Roma Settlements, 2010 165 Table ED.4R Primary school attendance, Roma Settlements, 2010 166 Table ED.5R Secondary school attendance, Roma Settlements, 2010 167 Table ED.6R Children reaching last grade of primary school, Roma Settlements, 2010 168 Table ED.7R Primary school completion and transition to secondary school, Roma Settlements, 2010 169 Table ED.7RA Net primary school completion and transition to secondary school, Roma Settlements, 2010 170 Table ED.8R Education gender parity, Roma Settlements, 2010 171 Table CP.1 Birth registration, Serbia, 2010 172 Table CP.1R Birth registration, Roma Settlements, 2010 173 Table CP.2 Child discipline, Serbia, 2010 175 Table CP.2R Child discipline, Roma Settlements, 2010 177 Table CP.3 Early marriage, Serbia, 2010 178 Table CP.3M Early marriage, Serbia, 2010 179 Table CP.4 Trends in early marriage, Serbia, 2010 179 Table CP.4M Trends in early marriage, Serbia, 2010 180 Table CP.5 Spousal age difference, Serbia, 2010 181 Table CP.3R Early marriage, Roma Settlements, 2010 182 Table CP.3R.M Early marriage, Roma Settlements, 2010 183 Table CP.4R Trends in early marriage, Roma Settlements, 2010 183 Table CP.4R.M Trends in early marriage, Roma Settlements, 2010 184 Table CP.5R Spousal age difference, Roma Settlements, 2010 186 Table CP.6 Attitudes toward domestic violence, Serbia, 2010 187 Table CP.6M Attitudes toward domestic violence, Serbia, 2010 188 Table CP.6R Attitudes toward domestic violence, Roma Settlements, 2010 189 Table CP.6R.M Attitudes toward domestic violence, Roma Settlements, 2010 190-191 Table HA.1 Knowledge about HIV transmission, misconceptions about HIV/AIDS, and comprehensive knowledge about HIV transmission, Serbia, 2010 192 Table HA.1M Knowledge about HIV transmission, misconceptions about HIV/AIDS, and comprehensive knowledge about HIV transmission, Serbia, 2010 193 Table HA.2 Knowledge about HIV transmission, misconceptions about HIV/AIDS, and comprehensive knowledge about HIV transmission among young women, Serbia, 2010 194 Table HA.2M Knowledge about HIV transmission, misconceptions about HIV/AIDS, and comprehensive knowledge about HIV transmission among young men, Serbia, 2010 196 Table HA.3 Knowledge of mother-to-child HIV transmission, Serbia, 2010 197 Table HA.1R Knowledge about HIV transmission, misconceptions about HIV/AIDS, and comprehensive knowledge about HIV transmission, Roma Settlements, 2010 198-199 Table HA.1R.M Knowledge about HIV transmission, misconceptions about HIV/AIDS, and comprehensive knowledge about HIV transmission, Roma Settlements, 2010 198-199 Table HA.2R Knowledge about HIV transmission, misconceptions about HIV/AIDS, and comprehensive knowledge about HIV transmission among young women, Roma Settlements, 2010 200-201 Table HA.2R.M Knowledge about HIV transmission, misconceptions about HIV/AIDS, and comprehensive knowledge about HIV transmission among young men, Roma Settlements, 2010 202 Table HA.3R Knowledge of mother-to-child HIV transmission, Roma Settlements, 2010 203 Table HA.4 Accepting attitudes toward people living with HIV/AIDS, Serbia, 2010 204 Table HA.4M Accepting attitudes toward people living with HIV/AIDS, Serbia, 2010 206 Table HA.4R Accepting attitudes toward people living with HIV/AIDS, Roma Settlements, 2010 207 Table HA.4R.M Accepting attitudes toward people living with HIV/AIDS, Roma Settlements, 2010 208 Table HA.5 Knowledge of a place for HIV testing, Serbia, 2010 209 Table HA.5M Knowledge of a place for HIV testing, Serbia, 2010 210 Table HA.6 Knowledge of a place for HIV testing among sexually active young women, Serbia, 2010 211 Table HA.6M Knowledge of a place for HIV testing among sexually active young men, Serbia, 2010 212 Table HA.7 HIV counselling and testing during antenatal care, Serbia, 2010 213 Table HA.5R Knowledge of a place for HIV testing, Roma Settlements, 2010 214 Table HA.5R.M Knowledge of a place for HIV testing, Roma Settlements, 2010 215 Table HA.6R Knowledge of a place for HIV testing among sexually active young women, Roma Settlements, 2010 216 Table HA.6R.M Knowledge of a place for HIV testing among sexually active young men, Roma Settlements, 2010 217 Table HA.7R HIV counselling and testing during antenatal care, Roma Settlements, 2010 218 Table HA.8 Sexual behaviour that increases the risk of HIV infection, Serbia, 2010 219 Table HA.8M Sexual behaviour that increases the risk of HIV infection, Serbia, 2010 220 Table HA.9 Sex with multiple partners, Serbia, 2010 221 Table HA.10 Sex with multiple partners among young women, Serbia, 2010 222 Table HA.9M Sex with multiple partners, Serbia, 2010 223 Table HA.10M Sex with multiple partners among young men, Serbia, 2010 224 Table HA.11 Sex with non-regular partners, Serbia, 2010 225 Table HA.11M Sex with non-regular partners, Serbia, 2010 226 Table HA.8R Sexual behaviour that increases the risk of HIV infection, Roma Settlements, 2010 227 Table HA.8R.M Sexual behaviour that increases the risk of HIV infection, Roma Settlements, 2010 228 Table HA.9R Sex with multiple partners, Roma Settlements, 2010 229 Table HA.10R Sex with multiple partners among young women, Roma Settlements, 2010 230 Table HA.9R.M Sex with multiple partners, Roma Settlements, 2010 231 Table HA.10R.M Sex with multiple partners among young men, Roma Settlements, 2010 232 Table HA.11R Sex with non-regular partners, Roma Settlements, 2010 233 Table HA.11R.M Sex with non-regular partners, Roma Settlements, 2010 235 Table MT.1 Exposure to mass media, Serbia, 2010 236 Table MT.1M Exposure to mass media, Serbia, 2010 237 Table MT.1R Exposure to mass media, Roma Settlements, 2010 238 Table MT.1R.M Exposure to mass media, Roma Settlements, 2010 239 Table MT.2 Use of computers and internet, Serbia, 2010 240 Table MT.2M Use of computers and internet, Serbia, 2010 241 Table MT.2R Use of computers and internet, Roma Settlements, 2010 242 Table MT.2R.M Use of computers and internet, Roma Settlements, 2010 244 Table SW.1 Domains of life satisfaction, Serbia, 2010 245 Table SW.1M Domains of life satisfaction, Serbia, 2010 246 Table SW.2 Life satisfaction and happiness, Serbia, 2010 247 Table SW.2M Life satisfaction and happiness, Serbia, 2010 248 Table SW.3 Perception of a better life, Serbia, 2010 249 Table SW.3M Perception of a better life, Serbia, 2010 250 Table SW.1R Domains of life satisfaction, Roma Settlements, 2010 251 Table SW.1R.M Domains of life satisfaction, Roma Settlements, 2010 252 Table SW.2R Life satisfaction and happiness, Roma Settlements, 2010 253 Table SW.2R.M Life satisfaction and happiness, Roma Settlements, 2010 254 Table SW.3R Perception of a better life, Roma Settlements, 2010 254 Table SW.3R.M Perception of a better life, Roma Settlements, 2010 APPENDICES 258 Table SD.1 Allocation of Sample Clusters (Primary Sampling Units) to Sampling Strata 262 Table SD.1R Allocation of Sample Clusters (Primary Sampling Units) to Sampling Strata 267 Table SE.1 Indicators selected for sampling error calculations, Serbia, 2010 268 Table SE.2 Sampling errors: Total sample, Serbia, 2010 269 Table SE.3 Sampling errors: Urban areas, Serbia, 2010 270 Table SE.4 Sampling errors: Rural areas, Serbia, 2010 271 Table SE.5 Sampling errors: Region 1 — Belgrade, Serbia, 2010 272 Table SE.6 Sampling errors: Region 2 — Vojvodina, Serbia, 2010 273 Table SE.7 Sampling errors: Region 3 — Sumadija and Western Serbia, Serbia, 2010 274 Table SE.8 Sampling errors: Region 4 — Southern and Eastern Serbia, Serbia, 2010 276 Table SE.1R Indicators selected for sampling error calculations, Roma Settlements, 2010 277 Table SE.2R Sampling errors: Total sample, Roma Settlements, 2010 278 Table SE.3R Sampling errors: Urban areas, Roma Settlements, 2010 279 Table SE.4R Sampling errors: Rural areas, Roma Settlements, 2010 280 Table DQ.1 Age distribution of household population, Serbia, 2010 281 Table DQ.2 Age distribution of eligible and interviewed women, Serbia, 2010 281 Table DQ.3 Age distribution of eligible and interviewed men, Serbia, 2010 281 Table DQ.4 Age distribution of under-5s in household and under-5 questionnaires, Serbia, 2010 282 Table DQ.5 Women’s completion rates by socio-economic characteristics of households, Serbia, 2010 283 Table DQ.6 Men’s completion rates by socio- economic characteristics of households, Serbia, 2010 284 Table DQ.7 Completion rates for under-5 questionnaires by socio-economic characteristics of households, Serbia, 2010 285 Table DQ.8 Completeness of reporting, Serbia, 2010 286 Table DQ.9 Completeness of information for anthropometric indicators, Serbia, Serbia, 2010 287 Table DQ.10 Heaping in anthropometric measurements, Serbia, 2010 287 Table DQ.11 Observation of places for hand washing, Serbia, 2010 288 Table DQ.12 Observation of under-5s birth certificates, Serbia, 2010 288 Table DQ.13 Presence of mother in the household and the person interviewed for the under-5 questionnaire, Serbia, 2010 289 Table DQ.14 Selection of children age 2–14 years for the child discipline module, Serbia, 2010 289 Table DQ.15 School attendance by single age, Serbia, 2010 290 Table DQ.16 Sex ratio at birth among children ever born and living, Serbia, 2010 291 Table DQ.1R Age distribution of household population, Roma Settlements, 2010 292 Table DQ.2R Age distribution of eligible and interviewed women, Roma Settlements, 2010 292 Table DQ.3R Age distribution of eligible and interviewed men, Roma Settlements, 2010 292 Table DQ.4R Age distribution of under-5s in household and under-5 questionnaires, Roma Settlements, 2010 293 Table DQ.5R Women’s completion rates by socio-economic characteristics of households, Roma Settlements, 2010 293 Table DQ.6R Men’s completion rates by socio- economic characteristics of households, Roma Settlements, 2010 294 Table DQ.7R Completion rates for under-5 questionnaires by socio-economic characteristics of households, Roma Settlements, 2010 295 Table DQ.8R Completeness of reporting, Roma Settlements, 2010 296 Table DQ.9R Completeness of information for anthropometric indicators, Roma Settlements, 2010 297 Table DQ.10R Heaping in anthropometric measurements, Roma Settlements, 2010 297 Table DQ.11R Observation of places for hand washing, Roma Settlements, 2010 297 Table DQ.12R Observation of under-5s birth certificates, Roma Settlements, 2010 298 Table DQ.13R Presence of mother in the household and the person interviewed for the under-5 questionnaire, Roma Settlements, 2010 298 Table DQ.14R Selection of children age 2–14 years for the child discipline module, Roma Settlements, 2010 299 Table DQ.15R School attendance by single age, Roma Settlements, 2010 299 Table DQ.16R Sex ratio at birth among children ever born and living, Roma Settlements, 2010 345 Table ED.4 (a) Primary school attendance, Serbia, 2010 346 Table ED.5 (a) Lower secondary school attendance, Serbia, 2010 347 Table ED.5 (b) Upper secondary school attendance, Serbia, 2010 348 Table ED.4R (a) Primary school attendance, Roma Settlements, 2010 349 Table ED.5R (a) Lower secondary school attendance, Roma Settlements, 2010 350 Table ED.5R (b) Upper secondary school attendance, Roma Settlements, 2010 32 Figure HH.1 Age and sex distribution of household population, Serbia, 2010 41 Figure HH.1R Age and sex distribution of household population, Roma settlements, 2010 48 Figure CM.1R Under-5 mortality rates by background characteristics, Roma settlements, 2010 51 Figure NU.1 Percentage of children under age 5 who are underweight, stunted and wasted, Serbia, 2010 54 Figure NU.1R Percentage of children under age 5 who are underweight, stunted and wasted, Roma settlements, 2010 57 Figure NU.2 Percentage of mothers who started breastfeeding within one hour and within one day of birth, Serbia, 2010 58 Figure NU.3 Percent distribution of children under age 2 by feeding pattern by age group, Serbia, 2010 65 Figure NU.2R Percentage of mothers who started breastfeeding within one hour and within one day of birth, Roma settlements, 2010 List of FiguresList of Figures 66 Figure NU.3R Percent distribution of children under age 2 by feeding pattern by age group, Roma settlements, 2010 70 Figure NU.4 Percentage of infants weighing less than 2500 grams at birth by wealth index, Serbia, 2010 71 Figure NU.4R Percentage of infants weighing less than 2500 grams at birth by wealth index, Roma settlements, 2010 74 Figure CH.1 Percentage of children under age 5 with diarrhoea who received oral rehydration treatment, Serbia, 2010 77 Figure CH.2 Percentage of children under age 5 with diarrhoea who received ORT or increased fluids, AND continued feeding, Serbia, 2010 79 Figure CH.1R Percentage of children under age 5 with diarrhoea who received oral rehydration treatment, Roma settlements, 2010 81 Figure CH.2R Percentage of children under age 5 with diarrhoea who received ORT or increased fluids, AND continued feeding, Roma settlements, 2010 91 Figure WS.1 Percent distribution of household members by source of drinking water, Serbia, 2010 96 Figure WS.1R Percent distribution of household members by source of drinking water, Roma settlements, 2010 195 Figure HA.1 Percentage of women who have comprehensive knowledge of HIV/AIDS transmission, Serbia, 2010 200 Figure HA.1R Percentage of women who have comprehensive knowledge of HIV/AIDS transmission, Roma settlements, 2010 221 Figure HA.2 Sexual behaviour that increases risk of HIV infection, Serbia, 2010 227 Figure HA.2R Sexual behaviour that increases risk of HIV infection, Roma settlements, 2010 MONITORING THE SITUATION OF CHILDREN AND WOMEN 11 List of Abbreviations AIDS Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome ANC Antenatal Care Antenatal Care CSPro Census and Survey Processing System Census and Survey Processing System ECDI Early Child Development Index Early Child Development Index EU European Union European Union GPI Gender Parity Index Gender Parity Index HIV Human Immunodeficiency Virus Human Immunodeficiency Virus ICT Information/Communication Technology Information/Communication Technology IMR Infant Mortality rate Infant Mortality rate IUD Intrauterine Device Intrauterine Device JMP Joint Monitoring Programme Joint Monitoring Programme LAM Lactational Amenorrhea Method Lactational Amenorrhea Method MDG Millennium Development Goals Millennium Development Goals MICS Multiple Indicator Cluster Survey Multiple Indicator Cluster Survey NAR Net Attendance Rate Net Attendance Rate NCHS National Center for Health StatisticsNational Center for Health Statistics ORS Oral Rehydration Salts Oral Rehydration Salts ORT Oral rehydration treatment Oral rehydration treatment PPP Preparatory Preschool Programme Preparatory Preschool Programme PSU Primary Sampling Unit Primary Sampling Unit RHF Recommended Home Fluid Recommended Home Fluid SORS Statistical Office of the Republic of Serbia Statistical Office of the Republic of Serbia SPSS Statistical Package for Social Sciences Statistical Package for Social Sciences TFR Total fertility rate Total fertility rate U5MR Under-five mortality rate Under-five mortality rate UNDAF United Nations Development Assistance Framework United Nations Development Assistance Framework UNGASS United Nations General Assembly Special Session on HIV/AIDS United Nations General Assembly Special Session on HIV/AIDS UNICEF United Nations Children’s Fund United Nations Children’s Fund WHO World Health Organization World Health Organization MONITORING THE SITUATION OF CHILDREN AND WOMEN 13 Summary Table of FindingsSummary Table of Findings Multiple Indicator Cluster Surveys (MICS) and Millennium Development Multiple Indicator Cluster Surveys (MICS) and Millennium Development Goals (MDG) Indicators, Serbia, 2010Goals (MDG) Indicators, Serbia, 2010 Topic MICS4 Indicator Number MDG Indicator Number Indicator Value Serbia Romasettlements CHILD MORTALITY Child mortality 1.1 4.1 Under-five mortality rate 15.0 per thousand 1.2 4.2 Infant mortality rate 14.0 per thousand NUTRITION Nutritional status Underweight prevalence 2.1a 1.8 Moderate and Severe (–2 SD) 1.6 6.6 percent 2.1b Severe (– 3 SD) 0.5 1.4 percent Stunting prevalence 2.2a Moderate and Severe (–2 SD) 6.6 23.6 percent 2.2b Severe (–3 SD) 3.2 9.7 percent Wasting prevalence 2.3a Moderate and Severe (–2 SD) 3.5 5.2 percent 2.3b Severe (–3 SD) 0.8 2.4 percent Breastfeeding and infant feeding 2.4 Children ever breastfed 90.1 93.2 percent 2.5 Early initiation of breastfeeding 7.6 10.0 percent 2.6 Exclusive breastfeeding under 6 months 13.7 9.1 percent 2.7 Continued breastfeeding at 1 year 18.4 54.0 percent 2.8 Continued breastfeeding at 2 years 15.3 36.9 percent 2.9 Predominant breastfeeding under 6 months 39.2 52.2 percent 2.10 Duration of breastfeeding 8.8 14.9 percent 2.11 Bottle feeding 84.6 81.8 percent 2.12 Introduction of solid, semi-solid or soft foods 84.1 65.3 percent 2.13 Minimum meal frequency 84.3 71.9 percent 2.14 Age-appropriate breastfeeding 19.3 33.5 percent 2.15 Milk feeding frequency for non-breastfed children 89.1 59.8 percent Low birth weight 2.18 Low-birthweight infants 4.8 10.2 percent 2.19 Infants weighed at birth 99.6 96.2 percent CHILD HEALTH Care of illness 3.8 Oral rehydration therapy with continued feeding 59.7 59.8 percent 3.9 Care seeking for suspected pneumonia 89.7 91.7 percent 3.10 Antibiotic treatment of suspected pneumonia 81.6 90.6 percent Solid fuel use 3.11 Solid fuels 31.6 75.5 percent MULTIPLE INDICATOR CLUSTER SURVEY 201014 Topic MICS4 Indicator Number MDG Indicator Number Indicator Value Serbia Romasettlements WATER AND SANITATION Water and sanitation 4.1 7.8 Use of improved drinking water sources 99.5 97.7 percent 4.2 Water treatment 1.3 0.0 percent 4.3 7.9 Use of improved sanitation facilities 97.8 85.0 percent 4.4 Safe disposal of child’s faeces 25.7 13.4 percent 4.5 Place for hand-washing 99.3 91.4 percent 4.6 Availability of soap 99.1 95.7 percent REPRODUCTIVE HEALTH Contraception and unmet need 5.1 5.4 Adolescent birth rate 23.9 158.5 per thousand 5.2 Early childbearing 3.3 31.3 percent 5.3 5.3 Contraceptive prevalence rate 60.8 63.5 percent 5.4 5.6 Unmet need 6.6 10.2 percent Maternal and newborn health Antenatal care coverage 5.5a 5.5 At least once by skilled personnel 99.0 94.5 percent 5.5b At least four times by any provider 94.2 71.9 percent 5.6 Content of antenatal care 97.8 88.5 percent 5.7 5.2 Skilled attendant at delivery 99.7 99.5 percent 5.8 Institutional deliveries 99.8 99.3 percent 5.9 Caesarean section 24.6 13.6 percent CHILD DEVELOPMENT Child development 6.1 Support for learning 95.2 67.2 percent 6.2 Father’s support for learning 78.0 62.5 percent 6.3 Learning materials: children’s books 75.9 23.1 percent 6.4 Learning materials: playthings 62.8 54.4 percent 6.5 Inadequate care 1.0 4.7 percent 6.6 Early child development index 94.3 88.3 percent 6.7 Attendance to early childhood education 43.8 8.2 percent EDUCATION Literacy and education 7.1 2.3 Literacy rate among young Women age 15–24 99.3 76.5 percent Men age 15–24 99.5 77.8 percent 7.2 School readiness 97.2 78.0 percent 7.3 Net intake rate in primary education 94.9 90.9 percent 7.4 2.1 Primary school net attendance ratio (adjusted) 98.7 88.5 percent 7.5 Secondary school net attendance ratio (adjusted) 89.3 19.3 percent 7.6 2.2 Children reaching last grade of primary 98.9 89.9 percent 7.7 Primary completion rate 104.1 62.7 percent Net primary completion rate 92.0 35.0 percent 7.8 Transition rate to secondary school 98.1 68.1 percent 7.9 3.1 Gender parity index (primary school) 1.01 0.96 ratio 7.10 3.1 Gender parity index (secondary school) 1.02 0.72 ratio MONITORING THE SITUATION OF CHILDREN AND WOMEN 15 Topic MICS4 Indicator Number MDG Indicator Number Indicator Value Serbia Romasettlements CHILD PROTECTION Birth registration 8.1 Birth registration 98.9 98.8 percent Child discipline 8.5 Violent discipline 67.1 86.1 percent Early marriage 8.6 Marriage before age 15 Women age 15–49 0.8 16.2 percent 8.7 Marriage before age 18 Women age 20–49 7.7 53.7 percent 8.8 Young women and men age 15–19 currently married or in union Women age 15–19 5.2 44.3 percent Men age 15–19 1.2 19.0 percent Spousal age difference 8.10a Women age 15–19 7.8 2.5 percent 8.10b Women age 20–24 8.9 5.0 percent Domestic violence 8.14 Attitudes towards domestic violence Women age 15–49 2.9 20.1 percent HIV/AIDS AND SEXUAL BEHAVIOUR HIV/AIDS knowledge and attitudes 9.1 Comprehensive knowledge about HIV prevention Women age 15–49 52.7 13.3 percent 9.2 6.3 Comprehensive knowledge about HIV prevention among young people Women age 15–24 54.1 12.2 percent Men age 15–24 47.6 11.1 percent 9.3 Knowledge of mother-to-child transmission of HIV 65.1 47.2 percent 9.4 Accepting attitude towards people living with HIV Women age 15–49 12.6 3.6 percent 9.5 Women and men who know where to be tested for HIV Women age 15–49 74.1 29.4 percent 9.6 Women and men who have been tested for HIV and know the results Women age 15–49 1.4 0.3 percent 9.7 Sexually active young women and men who have been tested for HIV and know the results Women age 15–24 2.5 0.7 percent Men age 15–24 3.3 4.1 percent 9.8 HIV counselling during antenatal care 18.9 5.7 percent 9.9 HIV testing during antenatal care 13.9 2.0 percent MULTIPLE INDICATOR CLUSTER SURVEY 201016 Topic MICS4 Indicator Number MDG Indicator Number Indicator Value Serbia Romasettlements Sexual behaviour 9.10 Young women and men who have never had sex Women age 15–24 47.5 83.0 percent Men age 15–24 32.4 54.7 percent 9.11 Sex before age 15 among young women and men Women age 15–24 1.7 14.4 percent Men age 15–24 4.2 13.3 percent 9.12 Age-mixing among sexual partners Women age 15–24 4.3 5.8 percent Men age 15–24 0.3 0.6 percent 9.13 Sex with multiple partners Women age 15–49 1.7 2.1 percent 9.14 Condom use during sex with multiple partners Women age 15–49 57.1 26.2 percent 9.15 Sex with non-regular partners Women age 15–24 41.2 8.9 percent Men age 15–24 60.7 32.3 percent 9.16 6.2 Condom use with non-regular partners Women age 15–24 77.1 37.0 percent Men age 15–24 80.0 51.2 percent ACCESS TO MASS MEDIA AND USE OF INFORMATION/COMMUNICATION TECHNOLOGY Mass media, computers and internet MT.1 Exposure to mass media Women age 15–49 57.6 19.0 percent MT.2 Use of computer among young Women age 15–24 91.4 39.1 percent Men age 15–24 92.6 63.1 percent MT.3 Use of internet among young Women age 15–24 85.0 25.2 percent Men age 15–24 86.2 52.4 percent SUBJECTIVE WELL-BEING Life satisfaction SW.1 Life satisfaction among young Women age 15–24 66.8 58.7 percent Men age 15–24 68.2 53.1 percent SW.2 Happiness among young Women age 15–24 93.3 87.3 percent Men age 15–24 92.3 86.7 percent SW.3 Perception of a better life among young Women age 15–24 43.2 26.2 percent Men age 15–24 36.2 25.5 percent MONITORING THE SITUATION OF CHILDREN AND WOMEN 17 The Multiple Indicator Cluster Survey in Serbia is a The Multiple Indicator Cluster Survey in Serbia is a nationally representative sample survey of households, nationally representative sample survey of households, women, young men and children. In addition to carrying women, young men and children. In addition to carrying out MICS4 on a nationally representative sample, a out MICS4 on a nationally representative sample, a survey was also carried out on a separate sample of Roma survey was also carried out on a separate sample of Roma settlements in Serbia. settlements in Serbia. The Multiple Indicator Cluster Survey (MICS4) was The Multiple Indicator Cluster Survey (MICS4) was carried out in 2010 by the Statistical Office of the Republic carried out in 2010 by the Statistical Office of the Republic of Serbia with financial and technical support from the of Serbia with financial and technical support from the United Nations Children’s Fund (UNICEF). The results United Nations Children’s Fund (UNICEF). The results pertain to November–December 2010, when the fieldwork pertain to November–December 2010, when the fieldwork was conducted. was conducted. Survey findings from both samples are presented jointly Survey findings from both samples are presented jointly in this report. in this report. Child mortalityChild mortality The infant mortality rate among children living The infant mortality rate among children living in Roma settlements is estimated at 14 per thousand in Roma settlements is estimated at 14 per thousand live births, while the probability of dying under the live births, while the probability of dying under the age of 5 is around 15 per thousand live births (almost age of 5 is around 15 per thousand live births (almost double the national average).double the national average). Nutritional statusNutritional status 16 percent of children under the age of five are 16 percent of children under the age of five are overweightoverweight The prevalence of child malnourishment (moderate The prevalence of child malnourishment (moderate and severe) in Serbia is relatively low: the prevalence of and severe) in Serbia is relatively low: the prevalence of underweight is nearly 2 percent, close to 7 percent of underweight is nearly 2 percent, close to 7 percent of children are stunted, and 4 percent are wasted. children are stunted, and 4 percent are wasted. The opposite nutritional status is found amongThe opposite nutritional status is found among children living in Roma settlements — the prevalence children living in Roma settlements — the prevalence of malnourishment is several times higher than the of malnourishment is several times higher than the EXECUTIVE SUMMARYEXECUTIVE SUMMARY national average (around 7 percent of children are national average (around 7 percent of children are underweight and around 24 percent stunted). However, underweight and around 24 percent stunted). However, the prevalence of obesity is similar — 13 percent. the prevalence of obesity is similar — 13 percent. BreastfeedingBreastfeeding Although all children aged less than six months should Although all children aged less than six months should still be breastfed exclusively, only approximately 14 still be breastfed exclusively, only approximately 14 percent were exclusively breastfed at this age.percent were exclusively breastfed at this age. Only 8 percent of last-born children in the 2 years Only 8 percent of last-born children in the 2 years preceding the survey were breastfed for the first time preceding the survey were breastfed for the first time within one hour of birth, and 39 percent of children within one hour of birth, and 39 percent of children aged 0–5 months were predominantly breastfed. aged 0–5 months were predominantly breastfed. Between the ages of 6–23 months, 21 percent of Between the ages of 6–23 months, 21 percent of children receive breast milk and solid or semi-solid children receive breast milk and solid or semi-solid foods. Among children aged 0–23 months, 19 percent foods. Among children aged 0–23 months, 19 percent are appropriately breastfed. Roma children living in are appropriately breastfed. Roma children living in settlements are more likely to continue to be breastfed settlements are more likely to continue to be breastfed than the national sample. 41 percent of Roma children than the national sample. 41 percent of Roma children aged 6–23 months are receiving breast milk and solid aged 6–23 months are receiving breast milk and solid or semi-solid food, and among Roma children aged or semi-solid food, and among Roma children aged 0–23 months, 34 percent are appropriately breastfed.0–23 months, 34 percent are appropriately breastfed. Low birth weightLow birth weight Out of 99.6 percent of weighed live births, 5 percent Out of 99.6 percent of weighed live births, 5 percent were below 2500 grams. In the Roma settlements, 96 were below 2500 grams. In the Roma settlements, 96 percent of live births were weighed, and 10 percent of percent of live births were weighed, and 10 percent of those births were underweight.those births were underweight. Oral rehydration treatmentOral rehydration treatment Overall, 8 percent of children under the age of five Overall, 8 percent of children under the age of five had diarrhoea in the two weeks preceding the survey. had diarrhoea in the two weeks preceding the survey. A higher prevalence of diarrhoea is noticeable among A higher prevalence of diarrhoea is noticeable among children living in Roma settlements, 14 percent. children living in Roma settlements, 14 percent. MULTIPLE INDICATOR CLUSTER SURVEY 201018 Approximately 73 percent of children with diarrhoea Approximately 73 percent of children with diarrhoea received one or more of the recommended home received one or more of the recommended home treatments (i.e., were treated with oral rehydration treatments (i.e., were treated with oral rehydration solution (ORS) or a recommended homemade fluid), solution (ORS) or a recommended homemade fluid), while 12 percent received no treatmentwhile 12 percent received no treatment Less than one third (32 percent) of children under-five Less than one third (32 percent) of children under-five with diarrhoea drank more than usual while 67 percent with diarrhoea drank more than usual while 67 percent drank the same or less. Two thirds (76 percent) ate drank the same or less. Two thirds (76 percent) ate somewhat less, same or more, but 24 percent ate much somewhat less, same or more, but 24 percent ate much less or ate almost nothing. The situation is very similar less or ate almost nothing. The situation is very similar among children living in Roma settlements.among children living in Roma settlements. Care seeking and antibiotic treatment of pneumoniaCare seeking and antibiotic treatment of pneumonia Five percent of children aged 0–59 months were Five percent of children aged 0–59 months were reported to have had symptoms of pneumonia during reported to have had symptoms of pneumonia during the two weeks preceding the survey. Of these children, the two weeks preceding the survey. Of these children, 90 percent were taken to an appropriate provider. 90 percent were taken to an appropriate provider. Children with suspected pneumonia were most often Children with suspected pneumonia were most often taken to a public health care provider — 38 percent to a taken to a public health care provider — 38 percent to a primary health care centre; 35 percent to a government primary health care centre; 35 percent to a government hospital. Furthermore, 82 percent of under-5 children hospital. Furthermore, 82 percent of under-5 children with suspected pneumonia had received an antibiotic with suspected pneumonia had received an antibiotic during the two weeks prior to the survey.during the two weeks prior to the survey. Overall, 26 percent of women knew of the two danger Overall, 26 percent of women knew of the two danger signs of pneumonia — fast and difficult breathing. signs of pneumonia — fast and difficult breathing. The most commonly identified symptom for taking The most commonly identified symptom for taking a child to a health facility is developing a fever (85 a child to a health facility is developing a fever (85 percent). Furthermore, 47 percent of mothers identified percent). Furthermore, 47 percent of mothers identified difficult breathing and 32 percent of mothers identified difficult breathing and 32 percent of mothers identified fast breathing as symptoms for taking children fast breathing as symptoms for taking children immediately to a health care provider. immediately to a health care provider. Among children living in Roma settlements, 18 Among children living in Roma settlements, 18 percent aged 0–59 months were reported to have had percent aged 0–59 months were reported to have had symptoms of pneumonia. 92 percent were taken to an symptoms of pneumonia. 92 percent were taken to an appropriate provider and 91 percent had received an appropriate provider and 91 percent had received an antibiotic during the two weeks prior to the survey.antibiotic during the two weeks prior to the survey. Only 16 percent of women in Roma settlements knew of Only 16 percent of women in Roma settlements knew of the two danger signs of pneumonia. Difficult breathing the two danger signs of pneumonia. Difficult breathing was identified as a symptom that requires immediate was identified as a symptom that requires immediate health care by 28 percent of mothers, and fast breathing health care by 28 percent of mothers, and fast breathing was identified by 20 percent of mothers, while the most was identified by 20 percent of mothers, while the most commonly identified symptom for taking a child to commonly identified symptom for taking a child to a health facility was developing a fever (82 percent). a health facility was developing a fever (82 percent). When it comes to recognizing the danger signs of When it comes to recognizing the danger signs of pneumonia, there are significant differences depending pneumonia, there are significant differences depending on the mother’s education. Only 9 percent of mothers on the mother’s education. Only 9 percent of mothers without education know the two signs compared with without education know the two signs compared with 24 percent of those with secondary education. 24 percent of those with secondary education. Solid fuel useSolid fuel use Almost one third (32 percent) of all households in Almost one third (32 percent) of all households in Serbia use solid fuels for cooking. A much higher Serbia use solid fuels for cooking. A much higher proportion of solid fuel usage is noticed among proportion of solid fuel usage is noticed among the poorest quintile (73 percent) and in Roma the poorest quintile (73 percent) and in Roma households (76 percent).households (76 percent). Water and sanitation Water and sanitation 100 percent of the population has access to an 100 percent of the population has access to an improved drinking water source (if one uses a broad improved drinking water source (if one uses a broad definition of access where improved drinking water definition of access where improved drinking water sources include piped water, a public tap/standpipe, sources include piped water, a public tap/standpipe, a tubewell/borehole, a protected well or spring). 79 a tubewell/borehole, a protected well or spring). 79 percent of the population uses water piped into their percent of the population uses water piped into their dwelling from a public or local water supply as their dwelling from a public or local water supply as their main source of drinking water. Such access is higher main source of drinking water. Such access is higher in urban areas (84 percent) than in rural areas (73 in urban areas (84 percent) than in rural areas (73 percent). percent). The situation is similar in Roma settlements where 98 The situation is similar in Roma settlements where 98 percent of the population uses an improved source of percent of the population uses an improved source of drinking water — 99 percent in urban areas and 96 drinking water — 99 percent in urban areas and 96 percent in rural areas.percent in rural areas. Virtually the entire population uses sanitary means Virtually the entire population uses sanitary means of excreta disposal. 94 percent have a flush toilet of excreta disposal. 94 percent have a flush toilet connected either to a sewage system or septic tank. connected either to a sewage system or septic tank. Septic tanks are much more common in rural areas Septic tanks are much more common in rural areas — 71 percent — compared to 13 percent in urban areas. — 71 percent — compared to 13 percent in urban areas. On the other hand, only 62 percent of households in On the other hand, only 62 percent of households in Roma settlements have a flush toilet connected either Roma settlements have a flush toilet connected either to a sewage system or a septic tank. This is much less to a sewage system or a septic tank. This is much less common in the poorest quintile (6 percent) than in common in the poorest quintile (6 percent) than in the richest quintile (96 percent).the richest quintile (96 percent). ContraceptionContraception Current use of any contraception was reported by Current use of any contraception was reported by 61 percent of women aged 15–49, currently married 61 percent of women aged 15–49, currently married or in union. Among women in Serbia, traditional or in union. Among women in Serbia, traditional methods are more popular than modern ones, 39 methods are more popular than modern ones, 39 MONITORING THE SITUATION OF CHILDREN AND WOMEN 19 percent compared to 22 percent. The most popular percent compared to 22 percent. The most popular method is withdrawal which is used by one in three method is withdrawal which is used by one in three married women. The next most popular method is married women. The next most popular method is the male condom, which accounts for 14 percent of the male condom, which accounts for 14 percent of married women. Eight percent of women reported married women. Eight percent of women reported use of periodic abstinence, while between 3 and 4 use of periodic abstinence, while between 3 and 4 percent of women used the IUD and the pill.percent of women used the IUD and the pill. Use of contraception is not very different across Use of contraception is not very different across regions, ranging from 57 percent in Sumadija and regions, ranging from 57 percent in Sumadija and Western Serbia to 67 percent in Vojvodina. Usage Western Serbia to 67 percent in Vojvodina. Usage in urban and rural areas is also almost the same. in urban and rural areas is also almost the same. Adolescents are less likely to use contraception Adolescents are less likely to use contraception than older women. Women’s education level is than older women. Women’s education level is associated with prevalence of contraception usage. associated with prevalence of contraception usage. The percentage of women using any method of The percentage of women using any method of contraception rises from 53 percent among those contraception rises from 53 percent among those with only primary education to 65 percent among with only primary education to 65 percent among women with higher education.women with higher education. Among women living in Roma settlements, aged Among women living in Roma settlements, aged 15–49, currently married or in union, use of 15–49, currently married or in union, use of contraception was reported by 64 percent (58 percent contraception was reported by 64 percent (58 percent traditional methods and 6 percent modern methods). traditional methods and 6 percent modern methods). The most popular method is withdrawal, used by The most popular method is withdrawal, used by about half the women. Adolescents are again less about half the women. Adolescents are again less likely to use contraception than older women. Only likely to use contraception than older women. Only about 41 percent of women, married or in union, about 41 percent of women, married or in union, aged 15–19, currently use a method of contraception aged 15–19, currently use a method of contraception compared to 59 percent of those aged 20–24 years compared to 59 percent of those aged 20–24 years old, and 78 percent of older women (35–39 years old, and 78 percent of older women (35–39 years old). The percentage of women using any method old). The percentage of women using any method of contraception rises from 53 percent among those of contraception rises from 53 percent among those with no education to 70 percent among women with with no education to 70 percent among women with secondary education.secondary education. Unmet needUnmet need In Serbia, 7 percent of women married or in union have In Serbia, 7 percent of women married or in union have an unmet need for contraception. The unmet need of an unmet need for contraception. The unmet need of women within the age group of 25–29 years is higher women within the age group of 25–29 years is higher (13 percent). (13 percent). In Roma settlements, 10 percent of women married In Roma settlements, 10 percent of women married or in union have an unmet need for contraception. or in union have an unmet need for contraception. This is higher among women aged 20–24 (15 percent) This is higher among women aged 20–24 (15 percent) and aged 25–29 (18 percent). There is also a difference and aged 25–29 (18 percent). There is also a difference between rural (4 percent) and urban (13 percent) areas.between rural (4 percent) and urban (13 percent) areas. Antenatal careAntenatal care Coverage of antenatal care is high in Serbia, with 99 Coverage of antenatal care is high in Serbia, with 99 percent of women receiving antenatal care (ANC) percent of women receiving antenatal care (ANC) at least once during the pregnancy. Lower antenatal at least once during the pregnancy. Lower antenatal care is noticed among Roma women from the poorest care is noticed among Roma women from the poorest quintile (95 percent).quintile (95 percent). A high percentage (97 percent) of mothers received A high percentage (97 percent) of mothers received antenatal care more than once and 94 percent antenatal care more than once and 94 percent received ANC at least four times. However, in Roma received ANC at least four times. However, in Roma settlements, 85 percent of mothers received antenatal settlements, 85 percent of mothers received antenatal care more than once and 72 percent at least four times.care more than once and 72 percent at least four times. Assistance at deliveryAssistance at delivery With 99.7 percent of births, skilled personnel assisted With 99.7 percent of births, skilled personnel assisted at the delivery and almost the same percentage of at the delivery and almost the same percentage of women delivered in health facilities (99.8 percent). women delivered in health facilities (99.8 percent). Among women living in Roma settlements, 99.5 Among women living in Roma settlements, 99.5 percent had skilled personnel assisting at delivery and percent had skilled personnel assisting at delivery and 99.3 percent of births were given in a health facility.99.3 percent of births were given in a health facility. At delivery, medical doctors assisted in 93 percent of At delivery, medical doctors assisted in 93 percent of births (88 percent for Roma women) while nurses assisted births (88 percent for Roma women) while nurses assisted in 7 percent of deliveries (12 percent for Roma women).in 7 percent of deliveries (12 percent for Roma women). Child developmentChild development For about 95 percent of children under-five an adult For about 95 percent of children under-five an adult was engaged in four or more activities that promote was engaged in four or more activities that promote learning and school readiness during the 3 days learning and school readiness during the 3 days preceding the survey. The average number of activities preceding the survey. The average number of activities was 6. The involvement of fathers in such activities was 6. The involvement of fathers in such activities was lower (78 percent). was lower (78 percent). Children from the poorest quintile and those from Children from the poorest quintile and those from Roma households are less likely to be involved in Roma households are less likely to be involved in activities that promote learning (84 and 67 percent activities that promote learning (84 and 67 percent respectively) as well as children from Vojvodina (89 respectively) as well as children from Vojvodina (89 percent). Furthermore, a larger proportion of fathers percent). Furthermore, a larger proportion of fathers were engaged in activities with boys (82 percent) than were engaged in activities with boys (82 percent) than with girls (74 percent). However, this difference is not with girls (74 percent). However, this difference is not observed among Roma fathers where 64 percent are observed among Roma fathers where 64 percent are involved in activities with boys and 61 percent with girls. involved in activities with boys and 61 percent with girls. One percent of children under the age of 5 were left One percent of children under the age of 5 were left with inadequate care during the week preceding the with inadequate care during the week preceding the survey. The situation is different in Roma settlements survey. The situation is different in Roma settlements MULTIPLE INDICATOR CLUSTER SURVEY 201020 where 5 percent of children were left, either alone,where 5 percent of children were left, either alone, or in the care of another child.or in the care of another child. Early Childhood Development Index (ECDI)Early Childhood Development Index (ECDI) In Serbia, 94 percent of children aged 36–59 months In Serbia, 94 percent of children aged 36–59 months are developmentally on track. There are no relevant are developmentally on track. There are no relevant differentials among boys and girls. Looking at the differentials among boys and girls. Looking at the mother’s education, ECDI is 84 percent for children mother’s education, ECDI is 84 percent for children whose mother has primary education and 96 percent whose mother has primary education and 96 percent for those with higher education levels.for those with higher education levels. In Roma settlements, 88 percent of children aged In Roma settlements, 88 percent of children aged 36–59 months are developmentally on track. There 36–59 months are developmentally on track. There are some differentials among boys and girls. The are some differentials among boys and girls. The ECDI ECDI for male children is 86, and 91 for female for male children is 86, and 91 for female children. children. The index is higher for children who are attending The index is higher for children who are attending early childhood education programmes (99 percent). early childhood education programmes (99 percent). Looking at the mother’s education, ECDI is 88 percent Looking at the mother’s education, ECDI is 88 percent for children for children whose mother has primary education and whose mother has primary education and 95 percent 95 percent when the mother has secondary education. when the mother has secondary education. Attendance to early childhood education programmes Attendance to early childhood education programmes and school readinessand school readiness 44 percent of children aged 36–59 months were 44 percent of children aged 36–59 months were attending some forms of organized early childhood attending some forms of organized early childhood education programme. Attendance was almost double education programme. Attendance was almost double in urban (57 percent) than in rural areas (29 percent). in urban (57 percent) than in rural areas (29 percent). Increasing wealth status also implies a higher proportion Increasing wealth status also implies a higher proportion of children attending early childhood education of children attending early childhood education programmes — 75 percent for the richest quintile and programmes — 75 percent for the richest quintile and 22 percent for the poorest quintile.22 percent for the poorest quintile. Roma children attend early childhood education Roma children attend early childhood education programmes five times less than the rest of the programmes five times less than the rest of the population (8 percent).population (8 percent). Primary and secondary school participationPrimary and secondary school participation 95 percent of children of primary school entry age 95 percent of children of primary school entry age are currently attending first grade while 91 percent are currently attending first grade while 91 percent of Roma children start primary education on time.of Roma children start primary education on time. The majority (99 percent) of children of primary The majority (99 percent) of children of primary school age attend primary education. In the Roma school age attend primary education. In the Roma population only 89 percent of children of this age population only 89 percent of children of this age attend primary school.attend primary school. Almost all children who entered first grade of primary Almost all children who entered first grade of primary school eventually reached grade eight.school eventually reached grade eight. About 89 percent of children between the ages of About 89 percent of children between the ages of 15 and 18 are attending secondary or higher school. 15 and 18 are attending secondary or higher school. However, only 19 percent of children from Roma However, only 19 percent of children from Roma settlements are attending school at that age. In both settlements are attending school at that age. In both cases, children from wealthier households are more cases, children from wealthier households are more likely to attend secondary school or higher.likely to attend secondary school or higher. The Gender Parity Index (GPI) in Serbia is 1.01 for The Gender Parity Index (GPI) in Serbia is 1.01 for primary and 1.02 for secondary schools. Among primary and 1.02 for secondary schools. Among children living in Roma settlements, the GPI for children living in Roma settlements, the GPI for primary school is 0.96. Among children whose primary school is 0.96. Among children whose mother has primary education the GPI is 1.00 and in mother has primary education the GPI is 1.00 and in the richest quintile it is 1.01. The GPI for secondary the richest quintile it is 1.01. The GPI for secondary school is 0.72 meaning that girls are disadvantaged school is 0.72 meaning that girls are disadvantaged in in secondary education.secondary education. Adult literacyAdult literacy The literacy rate for women and men, aged between The literacy rate for women and men, aged between 15 and 24, is over 99 percent, and is lower only among 15 and 24, is over 99 percent, and is lower only among persons with just primary education (94 percent). On persons with just primary education (94 percent). On the other hand, only slightly over three quarters of the other hand, only slightly over three quarters of Roma are literate (77 percent of women and 78 percent Roma are literate (77 percent of women and 78 percent of men). The worst situation is among women and men of men). The worst situation is among women and men from the poorest quintile in Roma settlements where from the poorest quintile in Roma settlements where less than half are literate. less than half are literate. Birth registrationBirth registration The births of 99 percent of children under-five in The births of 99 percent of children under-five in Serbia have been registered. There are no significant Serbia have been registered. There are no significant variations in birth registration across sex, age, or variations in birth registration across sex, age, or education categories. The same applies for children education categories. The same applies for children living in Roma settlements.living in Roma settlements. Child DisciplineChild Discipline In Serbia, 67 percent of children aged between 2 and In Serbia, 67 percent of children aged between 2 and 14 were subjected to at least one form of psychological 14 were subjected to at least one form of psychological or physical punishment by their mothers/caretakers or physical punishment by their mothers/caretakers or other household members. Two percent of children or other household members. Two percent of children were subjected to severe physical punishment while were subjected to severe physical punishment while only 28 percent experienced methods of non-violent only 28 percent experienced methods of non-violent disciplining.disciplining. MONITORING THE SITUATION OF CHILDREN AND WOMEN 21 Male children were subjected more to both minor and Male children were subjected more to both minor and severe physical discipline (39 and 2 percent) than female severe physical discipline (39 and 2 percent) than female children (36 and 1 percent). Differentials with respect to children (36 and 1 percent). Differentials with respect to many of the background variables were relatively small, many of the background variables were relatively small, but it was noted that psychical punishment is almost but it was noted that psychical punishment is almost twice as common in households whose head has only twice as common in households whose head has only primary education (45 percent) compared with heads of primary education (45 percent) compared with heads of households with higher education (26 percent).households with higher education (26 percent). In Roma settlements, 86 percent of children aged 2–14 In Roma settlements, 86 percent of children aged 2–14 years were subjected to at least one form of psychological years were subjected to at least one form of psychological or physical punishment by their mothers/caretakers or or physical punishment by their mothers/caretakers or other household members and 6 percent of children other household members and 6 percent of children were subjected to severe physical punishment. On the were subjected to severe physical punishment. On the other hand, 23 percent of mothers/caretakers believe other hand, 23 percent of mothers/caretakers believe that children should be physically punished.that children should be physically punished. Early marriageEarly marriage The proportion of women aged between 15 and 49 who The proportion of women aged between 15 and 49 who got married before the age of 15 is very low (1 percent). got married before the age of 15 is very low (1 percent). Around 5 percent of women aged 15 to 19 are currently Around 5 percent of women aged 15 to 19 are currently married or in union. This practice is more common married or in union. This practice is more common in rural areas, among the less educated and especially in rural areas, among the less educated and especially among Roma (44 percent). Early marriage seems to be among Roma (44 percent). Early marriage seems to be more common among women than men aged 15 to 29.more common among women than men aged 15 to 29. Eight percent of young women aged 15 to 19 are married Eight percent of young women aged 15 to 19 are married to a man 10 or more years older. The percentage is to a man 10 or more years older. The percentage is similar (9 percent) among married women aged 20 to 24.similar (9 percent) among married women aged 20 to 24. Domestic violenceDomestic violence 3 percent of women in Serbia feel that a husband/3 percent of women in Serbia feel that a husband/ partner has a right to hit or beat his wife or partner partner has a right to hit or beat his wife or partner for at least one of a variety of reasons. Women who for at least one of a variety of reasons. Women who condone husband/partner violence, in most cases condone husband/partner violence, in most cases justify violence when women neglect the children justify violence when women neglect the children (2 percent), or if women demonstrate their autonomy, (2 percent), or if women demonstrate their autonomy, e.g. go out without telling their husbands or argue e.g. go out without telling their husbands or argue with them (1 percent).with them (1 percent). Domestic violence is more accepted in Roma settlements Domestic violence is more accepted in Roma settlements where 20 percent of women feel it can be justified. The where 20 percent of women feel it can be justified. The most common reasons given are the same: when they most common reasons given are the same: when they neglect the children (18 percent) or demonstrate their neglect the children (18 percent) or demonstrate their autonomy, e.g. argue with their husband (12 percent) or autonomy, e.g. argue with their husband (12 percent) or go out without telling him (11 percent).go out without telling him (11 percent). Knowledge of HIV transmissionKnowledge of HIV transmission In Serbia, 53 percent of women aged between 15–49 In Serbia, 53 percent of women aged between 15–49 years had a comprehensive knowledge of HIV, while years had a comprehensive knowledge of HIV, while this was the case for 54 percent of young women and this was the case for 54 percent of young women and 48 percent of young men (15–24). This percentage 48 percent of young men (15–24). This percentage was lower among the population of Roma settlements was lower among the population of Roma settlements where there were only 13 percent of women between where there were only 13 percent of women between 15–49 years with comprehensive knowledge. In the 15–49 years with comprehensive knowledge. In the 15–24 age-group it went down to 12 percent for women 15–24 age-group it went down to 12 percent for women and 11 percent for men. and 11 percent for men. 99 percent of young women and men aged 15–24 had 99 percent of young women and men aged 15–24 had heard of AIDS. However, only 72 percent of young heard of AIDS. However, only 72 percent of young women and 86 percent of young men from Roma women and 86 percent of young men from Roma settlements had heard of AIDS. Women and men settlements had heard of AIDS. Women and men from Roma settlements living in rural areas, with no from Roma settlements living in rural areas, with no education and from the poorest quintile were much education and from the poorest quintile were much less aware of AIDS.less aware of AIDS. A high percentage of women aged between 15–49 A high percentage of women aged between 15–49 years knew that HIV transmission can be prevented years knew that HIV transmission can be prevented by having only one faithful, uninfected sexual partner by having only one faithful, uninfected sexual partner (88 percent) and by using a condom every time (91 (88 percent) and by using a condom every time (91 percent). Eighty percent of women knew that a healthy percent). Eighty percent of women knew that a healthy looking person can have the AIDS virus and 75 percent looking person can have the AIDS virus and 75 percent that HIV cannot be transmitted by mosquito bites or that HIV cannot be transmitted by mosquito bites or by sharing food with someone with AIDS. by sharing food with someone with AIDS. Half of the women between 15–49 from Roma Half of the women between 15–49 from Roma settlements knew that transmission can be prevented settlements knew that transmission can be prevented by having only one faithful, uninfected sexual partner by having only one faithful, uninfected sexual partner (53 percent) and by using a condom every time (52 (53 percent) and by using a condom every time (52 percent). However, only 44 percent of them knew that percent). However, only 44 percent of them knew that a healthy looking person can have the HIV virus while a healthy looking person can have the HIV virus while around one third knew that it cannot be transmitted around one third knew that it cannot be transmitted through mosquito bites or by sharing food with through mosquito bites or by sharing food with someone with AIDS. someone with AIDS. In total, 13 percent of women aged between 15–49 In total, 13 percent of women aged between 15–49 years expressed accepting attitudes on all four years expressed accepting attitudes on all four indicators towards people living with HIV. The results indicators towards people living with HIV. The results are similar among young people (15–24) where 12 are similar among young people (15–24) where 12 percent of women and 9 percent of men had accepting percent of women and 9 percent of men had accepting attitudes. Acceptance was higher in urban areas and it attitudes. Acceptance was higher in urban areas and it increased with education and wealth index. Accepting increased with education and wealth index. Accepting attitudes were shared by only 4 percent of women aged attitudes were shared by only 4 percent of women aged 15–49 living in Roma settlements. 15–49 living in Roma settlements. MULTIPLE INDICATOR CLUSTER SURVEY 201022 Three out of four women (15–49) knew a place to get Three out of four women (15–49) knew a place to get tested for HIV, but only 10 percent of them have ever tested for HIV, but only 10 percent of them have ever been tested, with almost the same values for both been tested, with almost the same values for both indicators for young men (15–29). Only 4 percent of indicators for young men (15–29). Only 4 percent of women from Roma settlements had been tested for women from Roma settlements had been tested for HIV and 29 percent knew where testing can be done. HIV and 29 percent knew where testing can be done. Values are the same for young men (15–29) for testing, Values are the same for young men (15–29) for testing, but a little bit higher for knowing a place (36 percent). but a little bit higher for knowing a place (36 percent). Among women aged 15–49 that have given birth Among women aged 15–49 that have given birth within the two years preceding the survey, 19 percent within the two years preceding the survey, 19 percent received HIV counseling. The values are higher for received HIV counseling. The values are higher for women in Belgrade (33 percent) and those with the women in Belgrade (33 percent) and those with the highest education (26 percent). Only 6 percent of highest education (26 percent). Only 6 percent of all women in Roma settlements had received HIV all women in Roma settlements had received HIV counseling during antenatal care.counseling during antenatal care. Sexual behaviourSexual behaviour 61 percent of all young women and 70 percent of 61 percent of all young women and 70 percent of young men aged 15–24 years had had sex. Forty one young men aged 15–24 years had had sex. Forty one percent of women and 61 percent of men had had percent of women and 61 percent of men had had sex with a non-regular partner in the 12 months sex with a non-regular partner in the 12 months preceding preceding the survey. A condom was used by 77 the survey. A condom was used by 77 percent of percent of young women and 80 percent of men young women and 80 percent of men who had sexual intercourse with their last non-who had sexual intercourse with their last non- regular partner. regular partner. Seventy-three percent of young women and 71 Seventy-three percent of young women and 71 percent of young men (15–24) living in Roma percent of young men (15–24) living in Roma settlements had had sex. Nine percent of young settlements had had sex. Nine percent of young women and 32 percent women and 32 percent of men from Roma of men from Roma settlements had had sex with settlements had had sex with non-regular partners. non-regular partners. Usage of condom in this high-risk intercourse is Usage of condom in this high-risk intercourse is very low among young women (37 percent) and a very low among young women (37 percent) and a bit higher among men (51 percent).bit higher among men (51 percent). The number of women who had sex before the age The number of women who had sex before the age of 15 is very low — 2 percent of young women and 4 of 15 is very low — 2 percent of young women and 4 percent of young men. On the other hand, 14 percent percent of young men. On the other hand, 14 percent of young women and 13 percent of young men from of young women and 13 percent of young men from Roma settlements had sex before the age of 15.Roma settlements had sex before the age of 15. Having sex with a partner 10 or more years older Having sex with a partner 10 or more years older is reported by 4 percent of young women from the is reported by 4 percent of young women from the national sample and by 6 percent of young women national sample and by 6 percent of young women living in Roma settlements (more in rural than urban living in Roma settlements (more in rural than urban areas). For men, it is below 1 percent for both samples.areas). For men, it is below 1 percent for both samples. Exposure to Mass Media and ICTExposure to Mass Media and ICT Fifty eight percent of all women aged 15–49 were exposed Fifty eight percent of all women aged 15–49 were exposed to all three mass media (watch television, listen to the to all three mass media (watch television, listen to the radio and read newspapers) at least once a week, while less radio and read newspapers) at least once a week, while less than 1 percent of women received no media exposure. than 1 percent of women received no media exposure. Only 19 percent of women in Roma settlements were Only 19 percent of women in Roma settlements were exposed to three mass media at least once a week. Sixty exposed to three mass media at least once a week. Sixty percent of all men aged 15–29, but only one quarter of percent of all men aged 15–29, but only one quarter of young men in Roma settlements, were exposed to all young men in Roma settlements, were exposed to all three mass media at least once a week.three mass media at least once a week. The majority of young women aged 15–24 (91 percent)The majority of young women aged 15–24 (91 percent) had used a computer, and 85 percent had used had used a computer, and 85 percent had used the internet during the last 12 months. In Roma the internet during the last 12 months. In Roma settlements, only 39 percent of young women had settlements, only 39 percent of young women had used a computer and 25 percent had used the internet used a computer and 25 percent had used the internet during the last 12 months. Usage of computers and during the last 12 months. Usage of computers and internet among young men is higher: 93 percent had internet among young men is higher: 93 percent had used computers and 86 percent had used internet in used computers and 86 percent had used internet in the last 12 months. In Roma settlements, 63 percent of the last 12 months. In Roma settlements, 63 percent of young men had used a computer and 52 percent used young men had used a computer and 52 percent used the internet during the last 12 months.the internet during the last 12 months. Subjective Well-beingSubjective Well-being Overall, 67 percent of women and 68 percent of Overall, 67 percent of women and 68 percent of men aged 15–24 years were satisfied with life. The men aged 15–24 years were satisfied with life. The proportion of women that are satisfied with life is proportion of women that are satisfied with life is somewhat higher in urban areas (70 percent) than somewhat higher in urban areas (70 percent) than in rural areas (61 percent). For young men, the in rural areas (61 percent). For young men, the differentials in terms of background characteristics are differentials in terms of background characteristics are generally similar to those observed for young women. generally similar to those observed for young women. Among young persons aged 15–24 living in Roma Among young persons aged 15–24 living in Roma settlements, only 59 percent of women and 53 percent settlements, only 59 percent of women and 53 percent of men were satisfied with life.of men were satisfied with life. Among the same age group, a similar percentage of Among the same age group, a similar percentage of women and men were very or somewhat happy (93 women and men were very or somewhat happy (93 and 92 percent respectively). The proportion in Roma and 92 percent respectively). The proportion in Roma settlements was 87 percent for both men and women.settlements was 87 percent for both men and women. The proportion of women aged between 15–24 years The proportion of women aged between 15–24 years who thought that their lives had improved during the who thought that their lives had improved during the previous year and believed that it would get better after previous year and believed that it would get better after one year, is 43 percent. The corresponding indicator one year, is 43 percent. The corresponding indicator for men aged 15–24 years is lower than that of young for men aged 15–24 years is lower than that of young women (36 percent). The proportion for both Roma women (36 percent). The proportion for both Roma men and women is even lower — 26 percent.men and women is even lower — 26 percent. MONITORING THE SITUATION OF CHILDREN AND WOMEN 23 BackgroundBackground This report is based on the Serbia Multiple Indicator This report is based on the Serbia Multiple Indicator Cluster Survey, conducted in 2010 by UNICEF and the Cluster Survey, conducted in 2010 by UNICEF and the Statistical Office of the Republic of Serbia (SORS). The Statistical Office of the Republic of Serbia (SORS). The survey provides valuable information on the situation of survey provides valuable information on the situation of children, women and men in Serbia, and was based, in large children, women and men in Serbia, and was based, in large part, on the needs to monitor progress towards goals and part, on the needs to monitor progress towards goals and targets emanating from recent international agreements: targets emanating from recent international agreements: I INTRODUCTION INTRODUCTION the Millennium Declaration, adopted by all 191 United the Millennium Declaration, adopted by all 191 United Nations Member States in September 2000, and the Plan Nations Member States in September 2000, and the Plan of Action of A World Fit For Children, adopted by 189 of Action of A World Fit For Children, adopted by 189 Member States at the United Nations Special Session on Member States at the United Nations Special Session on Children in May 2002. Both of these commitments build Children in May 2002. Both of these commitments build upon promises made by the international community at upon promises made by the international community at the 1990 World Summit for Children.the 1990 World Summit for Children. A Commitment to Action: National and International Reporting ResponsibilitiesA Commitment to Action: National and International Reporting Responsibilities The governments that signed the Millennium Declaration and the World Fit for Children Declaration and Plan of Action The governments that signed the Millennium Declaration and the World Fit for Children Declaration and Plan of Action also committed themselves to monitoring progress towards the goals and objectives they contained: also committed themselves to monitoring progress towards the goals and objectives they contained: “We will monitor regularly at the national level and, where appropriate, at the regional level and assess progress “We will monitor regularly at the national level and, where appropriate, at the regional level and assess progress towards the goals and targets of the present Plan of Action at the national, regional and global levels. Accordingly, towards the goals and targets of the present Plan of Action at the national, regional and global levels. Accordingly, we will strengthen our national statistical capacity to collect, analyse and disaggregate data, including by sex, age and we will strengthen our national statistical capacity to collect, analyse and disaggregate data, including by sex, age and other relevant factors that may lead to disparities, and support a wide range of child-focused research. We will enhance other relevant factors that may lead to disparities, and support a wide range of child-focused research. We will enhance international cooperation to support statistical capacity-building efforts and build community capacity for monitoring, international cooperation to support statistical capacity-building efforts and build community capacity for monitoring, assessment and planning.” (assessment and planning.” (A World Fit for ChildrenA World Fit for Children, paragraph 60), paragraph 60) “…We will conduct periodic reviews at the national and subnational levels of progress in order to address obstacles more “…We will conduct periodic reviews at the national and subnational levels of progress in order to address obstacles more effectively and accelerate actions…” (effectively and accelerate actions…” (A World Fit for ChildrenA World Fit for Children, paragraph 61), paragraph 61) The Plan of Action (paragraph 61) also calls for the specific involvement of UNICEF in the preparation of periodic The Plan of Action (paragraph 61) also calls for the specific involvement of UNICEF in the preparation of periodic progress reports:progress reports: “… As the world’s lead agency for children, the United Nations Children’s Fund is requested to continue to prepare “… As the world’s lead agency for children, the United Nations Children’s Fund is requested to continue to prepare and disseminate, in close collaboration with Governments, relevant funds, programmes and the specialized agencies and disseminate, in close collaboration with Governments, relevant funds, programmes and the specialized agencies of the United Nations system, and all other relevant actors, as appropriate, information on the progress made in the of the United Nations system, and all other relevant actors, as appropriate, information on the progress made in the implementation of the Declaration and the Plan of Action.”implementation of the Declaration and the Plan of Action.” Similarly, the Similarly, the Millennium DeclarationMillennium Declaration (paragraph 31) calls for periodic reporting on progress: (paragraph 31) calls for periodic reporting on progress: “…We request the General Assembly to review on a regular basis the progress made in implementing the provisions of “…We request the General Assembly to review on a regular basis the progress made in implementing the provisions of this Declaration, and ask the Secretary-General to issue periodic reports for consideration by the General Assembly and this Declaration, and ask the Secretary-General to issue periodic reports for consideration by the General Assembly and as a basis for further action.”as a basis for further action.” MULTIPLE INDICATOR CLUSTER SURVEY 201024 In signing these international agreements, governments In signing these international agreements, governments committed themselves to improving conditions for their committed themselves to improving conditions for their children and to monitoring progress towards that end. children and to monitoring progress towards that end. UNICEF was assigned a supporting role in this task. UNICEF was assigned a supporting role in this task. (See the table on the previous page).(See the table on the previous page). In Serbia, commitment to these international priorities In Serbia, commitment to these international priorities has been demonstrated through development and has been demonstrated through development and implementation of national strategies and plans, namely implementation of national strategies and plans, namely the Poverty Reduction Strategy (2003), the National the Poverty Reduction Strategy (2003), the National Plan of Action for Children (2004) and the National Plan of Action for Children (2004) and the National Millennium Development Goals (2006). Plans for Millennium Development Goals (2006). Plans for integration into the European Union have included integration into the European Union have included social inclusion and poverty reduction as important social inclusion and poverty reduction as important components of Serbia’s EU integration policy.components of Serbia’s EU integration policy. All these policy frameworks require monitoring and All these policy frameworks require monitoring and assessment of progress. The fourth round of the Multiple assessment of progress. The fourth round of the Multiple Indicator Cluster Survey represents a large source of data Indicator Cluster Survey represents a large source of data for reporting on progress towards the aforementioned goals. for reporting on progress towards the aforementioned goals. The survey provides a rich foundation of comparative data The survey provides a rich foundation of comparative data for comprehensive progress reporting, especially regarding for comprehensive progress reporting, especially regarding the situation of the most vulnerable children (children in the situation of the most vulnerable children (children in the poorest households, Roma children or those living in the poorest households, Roma children or those living in rural areas). It also provides important information for the rural areas). It also provides important information for the new UNICEF Country Programme 2011–2015 as well as new UNICEF Country Programme 2011–2015 as well as the UNDAF 2011–2015.the UNDAF 2011–2015. This final report presents the results of the indicators and This final report presents the results of the indicators and topics covered in the survey. topics covered in the survey. Survey ObjectivesSurvey Objectives The 2010 Serbia Multiple Indicator Cluster Survey The 2010 Serbia Multiple Indicator Cluster Survey (MICS) (MICS) has as its primary objectives:has as its primary objectives:  To provide up-to-date information on the situation To provide up-to-date information on the situation of children, women and men in Serbia;of children, women and men in Serbia;  To furnish the data needed for monitoring To furnish the data needed for monitoring progress toward goals established in the Millennium progress toward goals established in the Millennium Declaration and other internationally and nationally Declaration and other internationally and nationally agreed goals, and to act as a basis for future action;agreed goals, and to act as a basis for future action;  To contribute to the improvement of data and To contribute to the improvement of data and monitoring systems in Serbia and to strengthen monitoring systems in Serbia and to strengthen technical expertise in the design, implementation, technical expertise in the design, implementation, and analysis of such systemsand analysis of such systems.  To generate data on the situation of children, women To generate data on the situation of children, women and men, including the identification of vulnerable and men, including the identification of vulnerable groups and of disparities, which will inform social groups and of disparities, which will inform social inclusion and poverty reduction policies and inclusion and poverty reduction policies and interventions.interventions. MONITORING THE SITUATION OF CHILDREN AND WOMEN 25 The MICS4 was carried in Serbia on two samples — a The MICS4 was carried in Serbia on two samples — a national sample representative of the whole population of national sample representative of the whole population of Serbia (refer to Serbia sample); and a Roma Settlements Serbia (refer to Serbia sample); and a Roma Settlements sample representative of the population living in Roma sample representative of the population living in Roma settlements in Serbia. Individual samples and their settlements in Serbia. Individual samples and their technical characteristics will be described separately in technical characteristics will be described separately in the relevant parts of the report.the relevant parts of the report. Elements of the survey methodology that were Elements of the survey methodology that were common for both samples, as well as survey findings common for both samples, as well as survey findings will be presented jointly to avoid repetition. will be presented jointly to avoid repetition. Sample DesignSample Design of the Serbia Sampleof the Serbia Sample The national sample for the Serbia Multiple Indicator The national sample for the Serbia Multiple Indicator Cluster Survey (MICS) was designed to provide estimates Cluster Survey (MICS) was designed to provide estimates for a large number of indicators on the situation of for a large number of indicators on the situation of children, women and young men at the national level, children, women and young men at the national level, for urban and rural areas, and for 4 regions: Belgrade, for urban and rural areas, and for 4 regions: Belgrade, Vojvodina, Sumadija and Western Serbia, and Southern Vojvodina, Sumadija and Western Serbia, and Southern and Eastern Serbia. The urban and rural domains within and Eastern Serbia. The urban and rural domains within 25 Areas were identified as the main sampling strata 25 Areas were identified as the main sampling strata and the sample was selected in two stages. Within each and the sample was selected in two stages. Within each stratum, a specified number of census enumeration stratum, a specified number of census enumeration areas were selected systematically with probability areas were selected systematically with probability proportional to size. After a household listing was proportional to size. After a household listing was carried out within the selected enumeration areas, the carried out within the selected enumeration areas, the listed households were divided into households with listed households were divided into households with and without children under 5, and a separate systematic and without children under 5, and a separate systematic sample of households was selected for each group. At the sample of households was selected for each group. At the national level a total of 6885 households were selected: national level a total of 6885 households were selected: 3650 households with children and 3235 households 3650 households with children and 3235 households IIII SAMPLE AND SURVEY SAMPLE AND SURVEY METHODOLOGYMETHODOLOGY without children. The Serbia Multiple Indicator Cluster without children. The Serbia Multiple Indicator Cluster Survey sample is not self-weighting. For reporting of Survey sample is not self-weighting. For reporting of national level results, sample weights were used. A more national level results, sample weights were used. A more detailed description of the sample design can be found detailed description of the sample design can be found in Appendix A.in Appendix A. Sample Design of theSample Design of the Roma Settlements SampleRoma Settlements Sample The sample for Roma settlements for the Multiple The sample for Roma settlements for the Multiple Indicator Cluster Survey (MICS) was designed to Indicator Cluster Survey (MICS) was designed to provide estimates for a large number of indicators on provide estimates for a large number of indicators on the situation of children, women and young men in the situation of children, women and young men in Roma settlements, at the Serbia level and for urban Roma settlements, at the Serbia level and for urban and rural areas. The urban and rural areas within each and rural areas. The urban and rural areas within each of three territories (Belgrade, Central Serbia without of three territories (Belgrade, Central Serbia without Belgrade, and Vojvodina) were identified as the main Belgrade, and Vojvodina) were identified as the main sampling strata and the sample was selected in two sampling strata and the sample was selected in two stages. Within each stratum, a specified number of stages. Within each stratum, a specified number of enumeration areas were selected systematically with enumeration areas were selected systematically with probability proportional to size. After a household listing probability proportional to size. After a household listing was carried out within the selected enumeration areas, was carried out within the selected enumeration areas, the listed households were divided into households with the listed households were divided into households with and without children under 5, and a separate systematic and without children under 5, and a separate systematic sample of households was selected for each group. A total sample of households was selected for each group. A total of 1815 Roma households were selected: 1311 households of 1815 Roma households were selected: 1311 households with children and 504 households without children. The with children and 504 households without children. The Roma settlements Multiple Indicator Cluster Survey Roma settlements Multiple Indicator Cluster Survey sample is not self-weighting. For reporting the results, sample is not self-weighting. For reporting the results, sample weights were used. A more detailed description sample weights were used. A more detailed description of the sample design can be found in Appendix A.of the sample design can be found in Appendix A. MULTIPLE INDICATOR CLUSTER SURVEY 201026 QuestionnairesQuestionnaires Four sets of questionnaires were used in the survey for Four sets of questionnaires were used in the survey for both samples: 1) a household questionnaire which was both samples: 1) a household questionnaire which was used to collect information on all used to collect information on all de jurede jure household household members (usual residents), the household, and the members (usual residents), the household, and the dwelling; 2) a women’s questionnaire administered in dwelling; 2) a women’s questionnaire administered in each household to all women aged between 15–49 years; each household to all women aged between 15–49 years; 3) an under-5 questionnaire, administered to mothers or 3) an under-5 questionnaire, administered to mothers or primary caretakers for all children under 5 living in the primary caretakers for all children under 5 living in the household; and 4) a men’s questionnaire administered in household; and 4) a men’s questionnaire administered in each household to all men aged 15–29 years. each household to all men aged 15–29 years. The Household Questionnaire included the following The Household Questionnaire included the following modules:modules:  Household Listing Form Household Listing Form  Education Education  Water and Sanitation Water and Sanitation  Household Characteristics Household Characteristics  Child Discipline Child Discipline  Handwashing Handwashing The Questionnaire for Individual Women was The Questionnaire for Individual Women was administered to all women aged 15–49 years living in the administered to all women aged 15–49 years living in the households, and included the following modules:households, and included the following modules:  Woman’s Background Woman’s Background  Access to Mass Media and ICT Access to Mass Media and ICT  Child Mortality Child Mortality  Desire for Last Birth Desire for Last Birth  Maternal and Newborn Health — only selected Maternal and Newborn Health — only selected questionsquestions  Illness Symptoms Illness Symptoms  Contraception Contraception  Unmet Need Unmet Need  Attitudes Toward Domestic Violence Attitudes Toward Domestic Violence  Marriage/Union Marriage/Union  Sexual Behaviour Sexual Behaviour  HIV/AIDS HIV/AIDS  Life satisfaction Life satisfaction The Questionnaire for Children Under Five was The Questionnaire for Children Under Five was administered to mothers or caretakers of children under administered to mothers or caretakers of children under 5 years of age5 years of age1 living in the households. Normally, the living in the households. Normally, the questionnaire was administered to mothers of under-5 questionnaire was administered to mothers of under-5 children; in cases when the mother was not listed in the children; in cases when the mother was not listed in the household roster, a primary caretaker for the child was household roster, a primary caretaker for the child was identified and interviewed. The questionnaire included identified and interviewed. The questionnaire included the following modules:the following modules:  Child’s Age Child’s Age  Birth Registration Birth Registration  Early Childhood Development Early Childhood Development  Breastfeeding Breastfeeding  Care of Illness Care of Illness  Anthropometry Anthropometry The Questionnaire for Individual Men was administered The Questionnaire for Individual Men was administered to all men aged 15–29 years living in the households, and to all men aged 15–29 years living in the households, and included the following modules:included the following modules:  Man’s Background Man’s Background  Access to Mass Media and ICT Access to Mass Media and ICT  Marriage/Union Marriage/Union  Contraception Contraception  Attitudes Toward Domestic Violence Attitudes Toward Domestic Violence  Sexual Behaviour Sexual Behaviour  HIV/AIDS HIV/AIDS  Life satisfaction Life satisfaction The questionnaires are based on the MICS4 model The questionnaires are based on the MICS4 model questionnairequestionnaire2. From the MICS4 model English version, . From the MICS4 model English version, the questionnaires were translated into Serbian and were the questionnaires were translated into Serbian and were 1 The terms “children under 5”, “children aged 0–4 years”, and “children aged 0–59 months” are used interchangeably in this report. 2 The model MICS4 questionnaires can be found at www.childinfo.org MONITORING THE SITUATION OF CHILDREN AND WOMEN 27 pre-tested in Belgrade during September 2010. Based on pre-tested in Belgrade during September 2010. Based on the results of the pre-test, modifications were made to the the results of the pre-test, modifications were made to the wording and translation of the questionnaires. A copy of the wording and translation of the questionnaires. A copy of the Serbia MICS4 questionnaires is provided in Appendix F.Serbia MICS4 questionnaires is provided in Appendix F. In addition to the administration of questionnaires, In addition to the administration of questionnaires, fieldwork teams observed the place for hand-washing and fieldwork teams observed the place for hand-washing and measured the weights and heights of children aged under measured the weights and heights of children aged under 5 years. Details and findings of these measurements are 5 years. Details and findings of these measurements are provided in the respective sections of the report.provided in the respective sections of the report. Training and FieldworkTraining and Fieldwork Training for the fieldwork editors was conducted for Training for the fieldwork editors was conducted for 7 days in September 2010, and training for the total 7 days in September 2010, and training for the total fieldwork staff was conducted for 10 days in October fieldwork staff was conducted for 10 days in October 2010. Training included lectures on interviewing 2010. Training included lectures on interviewing techniques and the contents of the questionnaires, techniques and the contents of the questionnaires, and mock interviews between trainees to gain practice and mock interviews between trainees to gain practice in asking questions. Towards the end of the training in asking questions. Towards the end of the training period, trainees spent 2 days in practice interviewing period, trainees spent 2 days in practice interviewing in urban and rural areas of Valjevo, Osecina and in urban and rural areas of Valjevo, Osecina and Mionica municipalities during October 2010. Mionica municipalities during October 2010. The data from the Serbia sample were collected by 15 The data from the Serbia sample were collected by 15 teams; each was comprised of 2 female interviewers, one teams; each was comprised of 2 female interviewers, one female editor, one male interviewer/measurer/driver and female editor, one male interviewer/measurer/driver and a supervisor. a supervisor. The data from the Roma settlements sample were The data from the Roma settlements sample were collected by 3 teams. Each team was comprised of collected by 3 teams. Each team was comprised of 2 female Roma interviewers, one female editor, one 2 female Roma interviewers, one female editor, one male interviewer/measurer/driver and a supervisor. male interviewer/measurer/driver and a supervisor. Fieldwork began in November 2010 and concluded in Fieldwork began in November 2010 and concluded in December 2010.December 2010. Data ProcessingData Processing Data was entered using the CSPro software. The data Data was entered using the CSPro software. The data entry was carried out on 10 microcomputers by 20 entry was carried out on 10 microcomputers by 20 data entry operators and 4 data entry supervisors. In data entry operators and 4 data entry supervisors. In order to ensure quality control, all questionnaires were order to ensure quality control, all questionnaires were double entered and internal consistency checks were double entered and internal consistency checks were performed. Procedures and standard programmes performed. Procedures and standard programmes developed under the global MICS4 programme and developed under the global MICS4 programme and adapted to Serbia’s questionnaire were used throughout. adapted to Serbia’s questionnaire were used throughout. Data processing began simultaneously with data Data processing began simultaneously with data collection and was completed in March 2011. Data collection and was completed in March 2011. Data was analysed using the Statistical Package for Social was analysed using the Statistical Package for Social Sciences (SPSS) software programme, Version 18, and Sciences (SPSS) software programme, Version 18, and the model syntax and tabulation plans developed by the model syntax and tabulation plans developed by UNICEF were used for this purpose.UNICEF were used for this purpose. The Report Structure The Report Structure As noted before, this report actually presents findings As noted before, this report actually presents findings from the MICS4 surveys carried out on two samples. from the MICS4 surveys carried out on two samples. Although they can be interpreted as two independent Although they can be interpreted as two independent surveys, a decision was made to present findings in the surveys, a decision was made to present findings in the joint report to make use of, and comparison between, joint report to make use of, and comparison between, data easier. data easier. Each subchapter starts with a common introduction. Each subchapter starts with a common introduction. After that, there are explanations that refer to the After that, there are explanations that refer to the Serbia sample and to the Roma settlements sample Serbia sample and to the Roma settlements sample findings. In order to visually differentiate findings findings. In order to visually differentiate findings coming from the two samples, the parts of the Report coming from the two samples, the parts of the Report that describe findings from Roma settlements are that describe findings from Roma settlements are shaded in a different colour.shaded in a different colour. MULTIPLE INDICATOR CLUSTER SURVEY 201028 How to Read the TablesHow to Read the Tables Some of the data collected by the questionnaires are not Some of the data collected by the questionnaires are not shown in the tables or presented in this Report for the shown in the tables or presented in this Report for the following reasons:following reasons:  Small number of cases (less than 25 unweighted cases) Small number of cases (less than 25 unweighted cases) per disaggregation categoryper disaggregation category  The education category “None” within Serbia The education category “None” within Serbia Sample (except in HH tables)Sample (except in HH tables) Note:  (M) — letter M after a Table/Figure code indicates that it refers only to the Men’s population (M) — letter M after a Table/Figure code indicates that it refers only to the Men’s population  (R) — letter R after a Table/Figure code indicates that it refers only to the Roma settlements sample (R) — letter R after a Table/Figure code indicates that it refers only to the Roma settlements sample  (*) — an asterisk in tables indicates that the percentage or proportion has been suppressed because it is based (*) — an asterisk in tables indicates that the percentage or proportion has been suppressed because it is based on fewer than 25 unweighted caseson fewer than 25 unweighted cases  ( (numbernumber) — figure in parenthesis indicate that the percentage or proportion is based on just 25 to 49 ) — figure in parenthesis indicate that the percentage or proportion is based on just 25 to 49 unweighted cases and should be treated with cautionunweighted cases and should be treated with caution  The education category “Higher” within Roma The education category “Higher” within Roma settlements Sample (except in HH tables)settlements Sample (except in HH tables)  Ethnicity of the head of household, within both Ethnicity of the head of household, within both samples (except in HH tables)samples (except in HH tables)  Customised Serbia-specific indicators are not included Customised Serbia-specific indicators are not included as they are not part of the global report template. as they are not part of the global report template. They will be included in MICS4 Report in the Serbian They will be included in MICS4 Report in the Serbian language.language. MONITORING THE SITUATION OF CHILDREN AND WOMEN 29 Sample CoverageSample Coverage Of the 6885 households selected for the sample, Of the 6885 households selected for the sample, 6803 were found to be occupied. Of these, 6392 were 6803 were found to be occupied. Of these, 6392 were successfully interviewed for a household response rate successfully interviewed for a household response rate of 94 percent. In the interviewed households, 5797 of 94 percent. In the interviewed households, 5797 women (aged between 15–49 years) were identified. women (aged between 15–49 years) were identified. Of these, 5385 were successfully interviewed, yielding Of these, 5385 were successfully interviewed, yielding a response rate of 93 percent within interviewed a response rate of 93 percent within interviewed households. In addition, 3398 children under five years households. In addition, 3398 children under five years of age were listed in the household questionnaires. of age were listed in the household questionnaires. Questionnaires were completed for 3374 of these Questionnaires were completed for 3374 of these children, which corresponds to a response rate of children, which corresponds to a response rate of 99 percent within interviewed households. In the 99 percent within interviewed households. In the interviewed households, 1938 men (aged between interviewed households, 1938 men (aged between 15–29 years) were identified. Of these, 1583 were 15–29 years) were identified. Of these, 1583 were IIIAIIIA SERBIA SAMPLE SERBIA SAMPLE COVERAGE AND THE COVERAGE AND THE CHARACTERISTICSCHARACTERISTICS OF HOUSEHOLDSOF HOUSEHOLDS AND RESPONDENTSAND RESPONDENTS successfully interviewed, yielding a response rate of successfully interviewed, yielding a response rate of 82 percent within interviewed households. Overall 82 percent within interviewed households. Overall response rates of 87, 93 and 77 percent respectively response rates of 87, 93 and 77 percent respectively are calculated for the women’s, under-5’s and men’s are calculated for the women’s, under-5’s and men’s interviews (Table HH.1).interviews (Table HH.1). Response rates across regions and areas were as Response rates across regions and areas were as expected — characterised by lower response rates in expected — characterised by lower response rates in urban areas (about 92 percent) and in particular in urban areas (about 92 percent) and in particular in Belgrade (about 88 percent). Lower response rates in Belgrade (about 88 percent). Lower response rates in urban areas were compensated for in the sample design urban areas were compensated for in the sample design by a higher number of allocated enumeration areas by a higher number of allocated enumeration areas (and households) to them. The response rates for men (and households) to them. The response rates for men were much lower compared to women and children. were much lower compared to women and children. MULTIPLE INDICATOR CLUSTER SURVEY 201030 Table HH.1: Results of household, women’s, men’s and under-5 interviews, Serbia, 2010 Number of households, women, men, and children under 5 by results of the household, women’s, men’s and under-5’s interviews, and household, women’s, men’s and under-5’s response rates Area Region Urban Rural Belgrade Vojvodina Sumadija and Western Serbia Southern and Eastern Serbia Total Households Sampled 4216 2669 1611 1918 1876 1480 6885 Occupied 4154 2649 1582 1903 1861 1457 6803 Interviewed 3836 2556 1399 1800 1788 1405 6392 Household response rate 92.3 96.5 88.4 94.6 96.1 96.4 94.0 Women  Eligible 3397 2400 1179 1589 1719 1310 5797 Interviewed 3153 2232 1066 1503 1571 1245 5385 Women’s response rate 92.8 93.0 90.4 94.6 91.4 95.0 92.9 Women’s overall response rate 85.7 89.7 80.0 89.5 87.8 91.6 87.3 Men  Eligible 1104 834 390 514 559 475 1938 Interviewed 909 674 336 406 448 393 1583 Men’s response rate 82.3 80.8 86.2 79.0 80.1 82.7 81.7 Men’s overall response rate 76.0 78.0 76.2 74.7 77.0 79.8 76.7 Children under 5  Eligible 1928 1470 606 1062 1011 719 3398 Mothers/caretakers interviewed 1916 1458 593 1057 1009 715 3374 Under-5’s response rate 99.4 99.2 97.9 99.5 99.8 99.4 99.3 Under-5’s overall response rate 91.8 95.7 86.5 94.1 95.9 95.9 93.3 MONITORING THE SITUATION OF CHILDREN AND WOMEN 31 Characteristics of HouseholdsCharacteristics of Households The weighted age and sex distribution of the survey The weighted age and sex distribution of the survey population is provided in Table HH.2. The distribution population is provided in Table HH.2. The distribution is also used to produce the population pyramid in Figure is also used to produce the population pyramid in Figure HH.1. In the 6392 households successfully interviewed HH.1. In the 6392 households successfully interviewed in the survey, 20874 household members were listed. in the survey, 20874 household members were listed. Of these, 10134 were males, and 10740 were females. Of these, 10134 were males, and 10740 were females. Table HH.2: Household age distribution by sex, Serbia, 2010 Percent and frequency distribution of the household population by five-year age groups, dependency age groups, and by child (age 0–17 years) and adult populations (age 18 or more), by sex   Males Females Total Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent Age 0–4 664 6.6 670 6.2 1335 6.4 5–9 510 5.0 549 5.1 1059 5.1 10–14 503 5.0 449 4.2 951 4.6 15–19 567 5.6 595 5.5 1162 5.6 20–24 700 6.9 700 6.5 1400 6.7 25–29 756 7.5 763 7.1 1518 7.3 30–34 734 7.2 681 6.3 1415 6.8 35–39 746 7.4 703 6.5 1449 6.9 40–44 573 5.7 610 5.7 1183 5.7 45–49 667 6.6 778 7.2 1445 6.9 50–54 766 7.6 729 6.8 1494 7.2 55–59 812 8.0 856 8.0 1668 8.0 60–64 701 6.9 698 6.5 1400 6.7 65–69 421 4.2 522 4.9 943 4.5 70–74 435 4.3 585 5.4 1020 4.9 75–79 307 3.0 466 4.3 773 3.7 80–84 190 1.9 255 2.4 445 2.1 85+ 75 .7 126 1.2 201 1.0 Missing/DK 6 .1 6 .1 11 .1 Dependency age groups  0–14 1677 16.5 1668 15.5 3345 16.0 15–64 7023 69.3 7112 66.2 14136 67.7 65+ 1428 14.1 1955 18.2 3382 16.2 Missing/DK 6 .1 6 .1 11 .1 Child and adult populations  Children age 0–17 years 2006 19.8 2009 18.7 4015 19.2 Adults age 18+ years 8121 80.1 8726 81.2 16847 80.7 Missing/DK 6 .1 6 .1 11 .1 Total 10134 100.0 10740 100.0 20874 100.0 MULTIPLE INDICATOR CLUSTER SURVEY 201032 The age and sex distribution of the MICS4 survey for The age and sex distribution of the MICS4 survey for 5-years-groups, is in accordance with the demographic 5-years-groups, is in accordance with the demographic estimates based on the vital statistics for 2010. Only estimates based on the vital statistics for 2010. Only children under 5 (6.4 percent) exceed national estimates by children under 5 (6.4 percent) exceed national estimates by 1.6 percent. Age distribution indicates negative population 1.6 percent. Age distribution indicates negative population growth. The proportion of children aged 0–14 in the growth. The proportion of children aged 0–14 in the overall population is the same as the proportion aged 65+ overall population is the same as the proportion aged 65+ (16 percent). Serbia is characterized by a low proportion (16 percent). Serbia is characterized by a low proportion of children aged under-five and a high proportion of the of children aged under-five and a high proportion of the elderly. Children up to 18 years of age constitute 19 percent elderly. Children up to 18 years of age constitute 19 percent of the population. The strongest prevailing group is the of the population. The strongest prevailing group is the 55–59 age-group (8 percent). The male-female ratio shows 55–59 age-group (8 percent). The male-female ratio shows small variations in the first 60 years of life after which it small variations in the first 60 years of life after which it decreases and the number of women exceeds that of men.decreases and the number of women exceeds that of men. Tables HH.3–HH.5 provide basic information on the Tables HH.3–HH.5 provide basic information on the households, female respondents aged 15–49, male households, female respondents aged 15–49, male respondents aged 15–29, and children under-5 by respondents aged 15–29, and children under-5 by presenting the unweighted, as well as the weighted presenting the unweighted, as well as the weighted numbers. Information on the basic characteristics numbers. Information on the basic characteristics of households, women, men and children under-5 of households, women, men and children under-5 interviewed in the survey is essential for the interpretation interviewed in the survey is essential for the interpretation of findings presented later in the report and also can of findings presented later in the report and also can provide an indication of the provide an indication of the representativeness of the representativeness of the survey. The remaining tables in this report are presented survey. The remaining tables in this report are presented only with weighted numbers. See Appendix A for more only with weighted numbers. See Appendix A for more details about the weighting.details about the weighting. Table HH.3: Household composition, Serbia, 2010 Percent and frequency distribution of households by selected characteristics Weighted percent Number of households Weighted Unweighted Sex of household head  Male 71.7 4583 4859 Female 28.3 1809 1533 Region Belgrade 21.5 1376 1399 Vojvodina 27.9 1784 1800 Sumadija and Western Serbia 27.0 1727 1788 Southern and Eastern Serbia 23.6 1506 1405 Area Urban 58.5 3741 3836 Rural 41.5 2651 2556 Number of household members 1 17.0 1089 678 2 22.2 1422 955 3 18.4 1176 1174 4 20.3 1297 1449 5 10.3 658 925 6 7.7 490 729 7 2.6 169 278 8 .8 53 113 9 .3 17 43 10+ .3 21 48 Education of household head  None 2.8 180 130 Primary 31.8 2035 1807 Secondary 45.2 2888 3166 Higher 20.1 1285 1286 Ethnicity of household head  Serbian 87.3 5581 5601 Hungarian 4.7 298 254 Bosnian 1.6 105 117 Roma 1.5 95 102 Other 3.9 251 250 Doesn’t want to declare 1.0 61 67 Total 100.0 6392 6392 Households with at least  One child age 0–4 years 16.7 6392 6392 One child age 0–17 years 37.4 6392 6392 One woman age 15–49 years 56.6 6392 6392 One man age 15–29 years 26.2 6392 6392 Mean household size 3.3 6392 6392 Figure HH.1: Age and sex distribution of household population, Serbia, 2010 MONITORING THE SITUATION OF CHILDREN AND WOMEN 33 Table HH.3 provides basic background information Table HH.3 provides basic background information on the households. Within households, the sex of on the households. Within households, the sex of the household head, region, residence, number of the household head, region, residence, number of household members, the education and ethnicityhousehold members, the education and ethnicity3 of the household head are shown in the table. These of the household head are shown in the table. These background characteristics are used in subsequent background characteristics are used in subsequent tables in this report. The figures in the table are also tables in this report. The figures in the table are also intended to show the numbers of observations by intended to show the numbers of observations by major categories of analysis in the report.major categories of analysis in the report. The weighted and unweighted numbers of households The weighted and unweighted numbers of households are equal, since sample weights were normalized (See are equal, since sample weights were normalized (See Appendix A). The table also shows the proportions of Appendix A). The table also shows the proportions of households with at least one child under 18, at least households with at least one child under 18, at least one child under 5, at least one eligible woman aged one child under 5, at least one eligible woman aged between 15–49, and at least one eligible man aged between 15–49, and at least one eligible man aged between 15–29. The table also shows the weighted between 15–29. The table also shows the weighted average household size estimated by the survey.average household size estimated by the survey. The gender structure for heads of households is The gender structure for heads of households is almost the same, when comparing Census 2002 and almost the same, when comparing Census 2002 and MICS 2010 data. Namely, 27 percent were women MICS 2010 data. Namely, 27 percent were women heads of household in 2002 and 28 percent in 2010. heads of household in 2002 and 28 percent in 2010. About 59 percent of households are urban, while the About 59 percent of households are urban, while the rest are rural. The regional distribution is similar to rest are rural. The regional distribution is similar to the Census data. The Vojvodina region comprises the the Census data. The Vojvodina region comprises the largest number of households with nearly one third largest number of households with nearly one third of the total, while the smallest number of households of the total, while the smallest number of households is in Belgrade (about 21 percent). The majority of is in Belgrade (about 21 percent). The majority of households have two to four members (61 percent). In households have two to four members (61 percent). In 57 percent of interviewed households, there is at least 57 percent of interviewed households, there is at least one woman aged between 15–49, and in 26 percent, one woman aged between 15–49, and in 26 percent, a man aged between 15–29 years. In 17 percent of a man aged between 15–29 years. In 17 percent of 3 This was determined by asking the respondents what ethnic group the head of household belonged to. 4 Throughout this report, unless otherwise stated, “education” refers to the educational level attained by the respondent, when it is used as a background variable. 5 A principal components analysis was performed by using information on the ownership of consumer goods, dwelling characteristics, water and sanitation, and other characteristics that are related to the household’s wealth to assign weights (factor scores) to each of the household’s assets. Each household was then assigned a wealth score based on these weights and the assets owned by that household. The survey household population was then ranked according to the wealth score of the household they are living in, and was finally divided into 5 equal parts (quintiles) from lowest (poorest) to highest (richest). The assets used in these calculations were as follows: type of water and sanitation, number of rooms for sleeping per member; main material of dwelling floor, roof and exterior walls; the type of fuel used for cooking; presence in the household of electricity, radio, television, non-mobile telephone, refrigerator, electric stove, bed, table with chairs, vacuum cleaner, PC/Laptop, closet, washing machine, drying machine, air conditioner, jacuzzi tub and video monitoring system; possesion by household members of watch, mobile telephone, bicycle, motorcycle or scooter, animal-drawn cart, car or truck, boat with motor, tractor; and ownership of bank accounts by members of the household. The wealth index is assumed to capture the underlying long-term wealth through information on the household assets, and is intended to produce a ranking of households by wealth, from poorest to richest. The wealth index does not provide information on absolute poverty, current income or expenditure levels. The wealth scores calculated are applicable for only the particular data set they are based on. Further information on the construction of the wealth index can be found in Filmer, D. and Pritchett, L., 2001. “Estimating wealth effects without expenditure data — or tears: An application to educational enrolments in states of India”. Demography 38(1): 115–132. Gwatkin, D. R., Rutstein, S., Johnson, K., Pande, R. and Wagstaff. A., 2000. Socio-Economic Differences in Health, Nutrition, and Population. HNP/Poverty Thematic Group, Washington, DC: World Bank. Rutstein, S. O. and Johnson, K., 2004. The DHS Wealth Index. DHS Comparative Reports No. 6. Calverton, Maryland: ORC Macro. interviewed households there is at least one child interviewed households there is at least one child under 5 years of age and in 37 percent, a child under under 5 years of age and in 37 percent, a child under 18 years. The survey estimated the average household 18 years. The survey estimated the average household size at 3.3 persons.size at 3.3 persons. Characteristics of Female Characteristics of Female Respondents Respondents 15–49 Years of Age, 15–49 Years of Age, Male Respondents Male Respondents 15–29 Years of Age and Children Under-5 15–29 Years of Age and Children Under-5 Tables HH.4, HH.4M and HH.5 provide information on Tables HH.4, HH.4M and HH.5 provide information on the background characteristics of female respondents the background characteristics of female respondents between 15–49 years of age, men between 15–29 between 15–49 years of age, men between 15–29 years of age, and of children aged under-5. In all years of age, and of children aged under-5. In all tables, the total numbers of weighted and unweighted tables, the total numbers of weighted and unweighted observations are equal, since sample weights have been observations are equal, since sample weights have been normalized (standardized). In addition to providing normalized (standardized). In addition to providing useful information on the background characteristics of useful information on the background characteristics of women, men and children, the tables are also intended women, men and children, the tables are also intended to show the numbers of observations in each background to show the numbers of observations in each background category. These categories are used in the subsequent category. These categories are used in the subsequent tabulations of this report.tabulations of this report. Table HH.4 provides the background characteristics of Table HH.4 provides the background characteristics of female respondents between 15–49 years of age. The female respondents between 15–49 years of age. The table includes information on the distribution of women table includes information on the distribution of women according to region, residence, age, marital status, according to region, residence, age, marital status, motherhood status, births in the two years preceding the motherhood status, births in the two years preceding the survey, educationsurvey, education4, wealth index quintiles, wealth index quintiles5, and ethnicity , and ethnicity of the head of household. of the head of household. MULTIPLE INDICATOR CLUSTER SURVEY 201034 Weighted percent Number of women Weighted Unweighted Region  Belgrade 21.2 1142 1066 Vojvodina 25.5 1376 1503 Sumadija and Western Serbia 28.2 1517 1571 Southern and Eastern Serbia 25.1 1351 1245 Area  Urban 58.6 3155 3153 Rural 41.4 2230 2232 Age  15–19 12.2 659 427 20–24 13.1 705 679 25–29 15.7 846 1201 30–34 14.4 775 1144 35–39 14.7 791 841 40–44 13.1 703 497 45–49 16.8 905 596 Marital/Union status  Currently married/in union 63.2 3405 4055 Formerly married/in union 6.0 325 302 Never married/in union 30.7 1655 1028 Motherhood status  Ever gave birth 64.2 3459 4216 Never gave birth 35.8 1926 1169 Weighted percent Number of women Weighted Unweighted Births in last two years  Yes 10.1 543 1187 No 89.9 4842 4198 Education  None .5 27 25 Primary 13.1 704 727 Secondary 57.0 3067 3120 Higher 29.5 1587 1513 Wealth index quintile  Poorest 13.9 750 783 Second 19.8 1066 1011 Middle 20.0 1080 1052 Fourth 22.6 1217 1193 Richest 23.6 1273 1346 Ethnicity of household head  Serbian 88.0 4739 4696 Hungarian 3.9 208 200 Bosnian 2.2 119 119 Roma 2.5 132 135 Other 2.8 150 185 Doesn’t want to declare .7 38 50 Total 100.0 5385 5385 Table HH.4: Women’s background characteristics, Serbia, 2010 Percent and frequency distribution of women age 15–49 years by selected background characteristics Approximately, 28 percent of interviewed eligible women Approximately, 28 percent of interviewed eligible women live in Sumadia and Western Serbia, and 21 percent in live in Sumadia and Western Serbia, and 21 percent in Belgrade. Distribution among the other two regions is Belgrade. Distribution among the other two regions is equal. This pattern is expected and follows demographics equal. This pattern is expected and follows demographics estimates based on the vital statistics for 2010. The estimates based on the vital statistics for 2010. The proportion of young women is lower, with 12 percent proportion of young women is lower, with 12 percent in the 15–19 years age group. Around 63 percent of in the 15–19 years age group. Around 63 percent of all women in this sample are currently married, while all women in this sample are currently married, while 31 percent have never been married. Distribution by 31 percent have never been married. Distribution by motherhood status is similar: 64 percent of women have motherhood status is similar: 64 percent of women have given birth, compared to 36 percent that have never given birth, compared to 36 percent that have never given birth. The majority of interviewed women have given birth. The majority of interviewed women have secondary education (57 percent), while the proportion secondary education (57 percent), while the proportion of women with no education is 0.5 percent, and with of women with no education is 0.5 percent, and with only primary education is 13 percent. Those with higher only primary education is 13 percent. Those with higher education constitute approximately 30 percent. As far education constitute approximately 30 percent. As far as wealth index quintiles are concerned, fewer women as wealth index quintiles are concerned, fewer women live in households within the poorest quintile — about live in households within the poorest quintile — about 14 percent — while 20 to 24 percent of women live in the 14 percent — while 20 to 24 percent of women live in the households within the remaining wealth quintiles.households within the remaining wealth quintiles. MONITORING THE SITUATION OF CHILDREN AND WOMEN 35 Weighted percent Number of men Weighted Unweighted Region Belgrade 20.2 319 336 Vojvodina 25.8 408 406 Sumadija and Western Serbia 28.3 448 448 Southern and Eastern Serbia 25.8 408 393 Area  Urban 57.4 908 909 Rural 42.6 675 674 Age  15–19 29.4 465 346 20–24 32.3 512 444 25–29 38.3 606 793 Marital/Union status  Currently married/in union 18.3 290 572 Formerly married/in union 1.2 19 17 Never married/in union 80.5 1274 994 Education  None .1 2 6 Primary 7.6 120 159 Secondary 65.2 1032 1063 Higher 27.1 429 355     Weighted percent Number of men Weighted Unweighted Wealth index quintile  Poorest 14.9 235 255 Second 20.6 326 317 Middle 20.3 321 301 Fourth 21.1 334 345 Richest 23.2 367 365 Ethnicity of household head  Serbian 87.3 1381 1358 Hungarian 3.9 63 64 Bosnian 2.3 36 38 Roma 3.3 52 63 Other 2.4 38 48 Doesn’t want to declare .8 13 12 Total 100.0 1583 1583 Table HH.4M: Men’s background characteristics, Serbia, 2010 Percent and frequency distribution of men age 15–29 years by selected background characteristics Table HH.4M provides background characteristics of Table HH.4M provides background characteristics of male respondents 15–29 years of age. The table includes male respondents 15–29 years of age. The table includes information on the distribution of men according to information on the distribution of men according to region, residence, age, marital status, education, wealth region, residence, age, marital status, education, wealth index quintiles, and ethnicity of the head of household.index quintiles, and ethnicity of the head of household. Approximately, 28 percent of interviewed eligible men Approximately, 28 percent of interviewed eligible men live in Sumadia and Western Serbia, and 20 percent in live in Sumadia and Western Serbia, and 20 percent in Belgrade. Distribution among the other two regions is Belgrade. Distribution among the other two regions is equal (about 26 percent). The predominant group in the equal (about 26 percent). The predominant group in the sample are men between 25–29 years of age, around 38 sample are men between 25–29 years of age, around 38 percent. The proportion of younger men is significantly percent. The proportion of younger men is significantly lower — there are 29 percent of men in the 15–19 years lower — there are 29 percent of men in the 15–19 years group. Around 18 percent of all men in this sample are group. Around 18 percent of all men in this sample are married, while 80 percent have never been married. The married, while 80 percent have never been married. The majority of interviewed men have secondary education majority of interviewed men have secondary education (65 percent), while the proportion of men with no (65 percent), while the proportion of men with no education is 0.1 percent, with only primary education is education is 0.1 percent, with only primary education is 8 percent, and with higher education is approximately 8 percent, and with higher education is approximately 27 percent. In accordance with the household ethnic 27 percent. In accordance with the household ethnic distribution, the majority of men live in households distribution, the majority of men live in households where the ethnicity of the head of the household is where the ethnicity of the head of the household is Serbian. The respective proportion of other ethnic Serbian. The respective proportion of other ethnic groups is under 4 percent. As for the wealth index groups is under 4 percent. As for the wealth index quintiles, fewer men aged 15–29 live in households quintiles, fewer men aged 15–29 live in households within the poorest quintile — about 15 percent — while within the poorest quintile — about 15 percent — while approximately the same number of men belongs to each approximately the same number of men belongs to each of the remaining groups (20 to 23 percent).of the remaining groups (20 to 23 percent). MULTIPLE INDICATOR CLUSTER SURVEY 201036 Weighted percent Number of under-5 children Weighted Unweighted Sex Male 49.5 1670 1710 Female 50.5 1704 1664 Region  Belgrade 18.9 639 593 Vojvodina 29.5 994 1057 Sumadija and Western Serbia 26.8 905 1009 Southern and Eastern Serbia 24.8 836 715 Area  Urban 53.6 1810 1916 Rural 46.4 1564 1458 Age  0–5 months 8.0 271 246 6–11 months 8.5 287 313 12–23 months 19.6 661 698 24–35 months 22.2 748 710 36–47 months 19.7 663 672 48–59 months 22.0 743 735 Mother’s education*  None 1.0 33 21 Primary 14.2 480 442 Secondary 58.7 1982 1991 Higher 26.0 878 920 Weighted percent Number of under-5 children Weighted Unweighted Wealth index quintile Poorest 18.8 634 580 Second 19.5 658 603 Middle 17.8 599 637 Fourth 19.7 665 698 Richest 24.3 818 856 Ethnicity of household head  Serbian 83.8 2829 2879 Hungarian 3.4 115 126 Bosnian 3.7 125 90 Roma 3.5 117 96 Other 4.5 153 147 Doesn’t want to declare 1.0 33 36 Total 100.0 3374 3374 * Mother’s education refers to educational attainment of mothers and caretakers of children under 5. Table HH.5: Under-5’s background characteristics, Serbia, 2010 Percent and frequency distribution of children under five years of age by selected characteristics Some background characteristics of children under Some background characteristics of children under 5 are presented in Table HH.5. These include the 5 are presented in Table HH.5. These include the distribution of children according to several attributes: distribution of children according to several attributes: sex, region, area of residence, age in months, mother’s sex, region, area of residence, age in months, mother’s or caretaker’s education and wealth index.or caretaker’s education and wealth index. The proportion of male and female children in The proportion of male and female children in the under-5 sample is the same — 50 percent. The the under-5 sample is the same — 50 percent. The majority of children under 5 in Serbia live in urban majority of children under 5 in Serbia live in urban areas (about 54 percent). The number of children in areas (about 54 percent). The number of children in Belgrade is smaller than expected (about 19 percent). Belgrade is smaller than expected (about 19 percent). The age distribution of children between 0–59 months The age distribution of children between 0–59 months is well balanced. The majority of children under 5 is well balanced. The majority of children under 5 (59 percent) have a mother with secondary education. (59 percent) have a mother with secondary education. More children under 5 live in households within the More children under 5 live in households within the richest wealth quintile — about 24 percent — while richest wealth quintile — about 24 percent — while approximately the same number of children belongs to approximately the same number of children belongs to each of the remaining groups (18 to 20 percent).each of the remaining groups (18 to 20 percent). MONITORING THE SITUATION OF CHILDREN AND WOMEN 37 ChildrenChildren’s Living Arrangementss Living Arrangements Table HH.6 presents information on the living arrangements Table HH.6 presents information on the living arrangements and orphanhood status of children under age 18.and orphanhood status of children under age 18. Table HH.6: Children’s living arrangements and orphanhood, Serbia, 2010 Percent distribution of children age 0–17 years according to living arrangements, percentage of children age 0–17 years in households not living with a biological parent and percentage of children who have one or both parents dead Living with both parents Living with neither parent Living with mother only Living with father only Impossible to determine Total Not living with a biological parent1 One or both parents dead2 Number of children age 0–17 years Only father alive Only mother alive Both are alive Both are dead Father alive Father dead Mother alive Mother dead Sex Male 89.1 .0 .1 .5 .1 6.0 .7 2.2 .4 .8 100.0 .7 1.3 2006 Female 88.0 .0 .0 1.6 .1 5.2 1.5 1.8 .2 1.6 100.0 1.7 1.8 2009 Region  Belgrade 89.7 .0 .2 .3 .0 6.8 .7 .9 .7 .6 100.0 .6 1.6 730 Vojvodina 86.3 .0 .0 1.3 .2 7.7 1.7 2.2 .0 .6 100.0 1.5 1.9 1077 Sumadija and Western Serbia 90.4 .0 .0 .8 .2 5.1 1.0 1.3 .2 1.0 100.0 1.0 1.4 1125 Southern and Eastern Serbia 88.2 .0 .0 1.5 .0 3.2 .9 3.2 .5 2.5 100.0 1.5 1.5 1083 Area  Urban 87.6 .0 .1 1.0 .1 7.3 1.0 1.6 .5 .9 100.0 1.1 1.7 2158 Rural 89.7 .0 .0 1.2 .1 3.7 1.2 2.4 .2 1.6 100.0 1.3 1.5 1857 Age  0–4 93.8 .0 .0 .5 .0 4.9 .3 .4 .0 .1 100.0 .5 .3 1335 5–9 89.3 .0 .0 .5 .0 5.6 .9 1.9 .5 1.3 100.0 .5 1.4 1059 10–14 85.6 .0 .0 .9 .2 7.0 2.2 2.5 .3 1.2 100.0 1.1 2.7 951 15–17 81.2 .0 .2 3.2 .4 4.9 1.5 4.4 .8 3.3 100.0 3.8 2.9 670 Wealth index quintiles  Poorest 83.8 .0 .0 2.3 .3 6.5 2.5 3.2 .0 1.4 100.0 2.6 2.8 747 Second 88.3 .0 .0 .5 .0 4.6 1.2 2.4 .4 2.6 100.0 .5 1.5 779 Middle 90.2 .0 .2 1.0 .2 4.3 1.0 2.2 .4 .6 100.0 1.4 1.8 805 Fourth 88.4 .0 .0 .5 .0 7.1 .6 1.4 .5 1.4 100.0 .5 1.1 826 Richest 91.5 .0 .0 1.1 .0 5.6 .5 .9 .3 .1 100.0 1.1 .8 859 Total 88.6 .0 .0 1.0 .1 5.6 1.1 2.0 .3 1.2 100.0 1.2 1.6 4015 1 MICS indicator 9.17 2 MICS indicator 9.18 MULTIPLE INDICATOR CLUSTER SURVEY 201038 Of the 4015 children age 0–17 recorded in MICS4, 89 Of the 4015 children age 0–17 recorded in MICS4, 89 percent live with both parents, 7 percent live with mothers percent live with both parents, 7 percent live with mothers only and 2 percent live with fathers only. About 1 percent only and 2 percent live with fathers only. About 1 percent live with neither of their biological parents while both live with neither of their biological parents while both of them are alive. Some 6 percent live with mothers only of them are alive. Some 6 percent live with mothers only while the biological father is alive.while the biological father is alive. Very few children lost one or both parents — 1 percent Very few children lost one or both parents — 1 percent of children have only their father dead and 0.3 percent of children have only their father dead and 0.3 percent of children have only their mother dead.of children have only their mother dead. Older children are less likely than younger children to live Older children are less likely than younger children to live with both parents and slightly more likely than younger with both parents and slightly more likely than younger children to have lost one or both parents. Table HH.6 also children to have lost one or both parents. Table HH.6 also shows that the percentage of children living with both shows that the percentage of children living with both parents is the highest in the richest wealth quintile (92 parents is the highest in the richest wealth quintile (92 percent) and lowest in the poorest quintile (84 percent). percent) and lowest in the poorest quintile (84 percent). MONITORING THE SITUATION OF CHILDREN AND WOMEN 39 Sample CoverageSample Coverage Of the 1815 households selected for the sample, Of the 1815 households selected for the sample, 1782 were found to be occupied. Of these, 1711 were 1782 were found to be occupied. Of these, 1711 were successfully interviewed for a household response rate successfully interviewed for a household response rate of 96 percent. In the interviewed households, 2234 of 96 percent. In the interviewed households, 2234 women (aged between 15–49 years) were identified. women (aged between 15–49 years) were identified. Of these, 2118 were successfully interviewed, yielding Of these, 2118 were successfully interviewed, yielding a response rate of 95 percent within interviewed a response rate of 95 percent within interviewed households. In addition, 1618 children under the age households. In addition, 1618 children under the age of five were listed in the household questionnaire. of five were listed in the household questionnaire. Questionnaires were completed for 1604 of these Questionnaires were completed for 1604 of these children, which corresponds to a response rate of children, which corresponds to a response rate of 99 percent within interviewed households. In the 99 percent within interviewed households. In the interviewed households, 1121 men (aged between interviewed households, 1121 men (aged between 15–29 years) were identified. Of these, 877 were 15–29 years) were identified. Of these, 877 were successfully interviewed, yielding a response rate of successfully interviewed, yielding a response rate of 78 percent for men within interviewed households. 78 percent for men within interviewed households. Overall response rates of 91, 95 and 75 percent are Overall response rates of 91, 95 and 75 percent are calculated for the women’s, under-5’s and men’s calculated for the women’s, under-5’s and men’s interviews respectively (Table HH.1R).interviews respectively (Table HH.1R). IIIBIIIB ROMA SETTLEMENTS ROMA SETTLEMENTS SAMPLE COVERAGE AND SAMPLE COVERAGE AND THE CHARACTERISTICS THE CHARACTERISTICS OF HOUSEHOLDS AND OF HOUSEHOLDS AND RESPONDENTSRESPONDENTS Table HH.1R: Results of household, women’s, men’s and under-5 interviews, Roma Settlements, 2010 Number of households, women, men, and children under 5 by results of the household, women’s, men’s and under-5’s interviews, and household, women’s, men’s and under-5’s response rates Area Total Urban Rural Households  Sampled 1142 673 1815 Occupied 1125 657 1782 Interviewed 1069 642 1711 Household response rate 95.0 97.7 96.0 Women Eligible 1428 806 2234 Interviewed 1369 749 2118 Women’s response rate 95.9 92.9 94.8 Women’s overall response rate 91.1 90.8 91.0 Men  Eligible 694 427 1121 Interviewed 540 337 877 Men’s response rate 77.8 78.9 78.2 Men’s overall response rate 73.9 77.1 75.1 Children under 5  Eligible 1032 586 1618 Mothers/caretakers interviewed 1024 580 1604 Under-5’s response rate 99.2 99.0 99.1 Under-5’s overall response rate 94.3 96.7 95.2 MONITORING THE SITUATION OF CHILDREN AND WOMEN 39 MULTIPLE INDICATOR CLUSTER SURVEY 201040 The response rates for households across residence The response rates for households across residence were as expected, with lower response rates of 95 were as expected, with lower response rates of 95 percent for urban areas. The response rate for men, percent for urban areas. The response rate for men, 78 percent, was much lower than for women and 78 percent, was much lower than for women and children. children. Characteristics of HouseholdsCharacteristics of Households The weighted age and sex distribution of the survey The weighted age and sex distribution of the survey population is provided in Table HH.2R. This distribution population is provided in Table HH.2R. This distribution is also used to produce the population pyramid in Figure is also used to produce the population pyramid in Figure HH.1R. In the 1711 households successfully interviewed HH.1R. In the 1711 households successfully interviewed in the survey, 8288 household members were listed. Of in the survey, 8288 household members were listed. Of these, 4165 were males, and 4123 were females. these, 4165 were males, and 4123 were females. Table HH.2R: Household age distribution by sex, Roma Settlements, 2010 Percent and frequency distribution of the household population by five-year age groups, dependency age groups, and by child (age 0–17 years) and adult populations (age 18 or more), by sex   Males Females Total Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent Age 0–4 611 14.7 583 14.1 1193 14.4 5–9 448 10.8 469 11.4 917 11.1 10–14 391 9.4 363 8.8 754 9.1 15–19 350 8.4 421 10.2 771 9.3 20–24 357 8.6 344 8.3 701 8.5 25–29 342 8.2 348 8.4 690 8.3 30–34 302 7.3 318 7.7 620 7.5 35–39 235 5.6 253 6.1 488 5.9 40–44 233 5.6 200 4.8 432 5.2 45–49 246 5.9 216 5.2 462 5.6 50–54 241 5.8 190 4.6 431 5.2 55–59 175 4.2 170 4.1 345 4.2 60–64 122 2.9 103 2.5 225 2.7 65–69 50 1.2 65 1.6 115 1.4 70–74 33 .8 45 1.1 78 .9 75–79 22 .5 15 .4 37 .4 80–84 6 .1 14 .3 20 .2 85+ 2 .0 6 .2 8 .1 Missing/DK 1 .0 0 .0 1 .0 Dependency age groups 0–14 1450 34.8 1415 34.3 2864 34.6 15–64 2602 62.5 2562 62.2 5164 62.3 65+ 112 2.7 146 3.5 258 3.1 Missing/DK 1 .0 0 .0 1 .0 Child and adult populations Children age 0–17 years 1636 39.3 1672 40.6 3309 39.9 Adults age 18+ years 2527 60.7 2450 59.4 4977 60.1 Missing/DK 1 .0 0 .0 1 .0 Total 4165 100.0 4123 100.0 8288 100.0 MULTIPLE INDICATOR CLUSTER SURVEY 201040 MONITORING THE SITUATION OF CHILDREN AND WOMEN 41 The age distribution for Roma settlements indicates that The age distribution for Roma settlements indicates that the proportion of children under the age of 5 is highest the proportion of children under the age of 5 is highest (about 14 percent), and then in each subsequent age-group (about 14 percent), and then in each subsequent age-group the proportion of the population decreases. Children the proportion of the population decreases. Children up to 17 years of age constitute about 40 percent of the up to 17 years of age constitute about 40 percent of the population, while only 3 percent belong to the group over population, while only 3 percent belong to the group over 65 years of age. There was almost no difference between 65 years of age. There was almost no difference between male and female distribution in the broad age groups.male and female distribution in the broad age groups. Tables HH.3R–HH.5R provide basic information Tables HH.3R–HH.5R provide basic information on the households, female respondents aged 15–49, on the households, female respondents aged 15–49, male male respondents aged 15–29, and children under-5 by respondents aged 15–29, and children under-5 by presenting the unweighted, as well as the weighted numbers. presenting the unweighted, as well as the weighted numbers. Information on the basic characteristics of households, Information on the basic characteristics of households, women, men and children under-5 interviewed in the survey women, men and children under-5 interviewed in the survey is essential for the interpretation of findings presented is essential for the interpretation of findings presented later in the report and can also provide an indication of the later in the report and can also provide an indication of the representativeness of the survey. The remaining tables in representativeness of the survey. The remaining tables in this report are presented only with weighted numbers. See this report are presented only with weighted numbers. See Appendix A for more details about the weighting.Appendix A for more details about the weighting. Weighted percent Number of households Weighted Unweighted Sex of household head  Male 86.4 1479 1476 Female 13.6 232 235 Area  Urban 70.1 1199 1069 Rural 29.9 512 642 Number of household members  1 4.6 79 54 2 9.7 165 100 3 14.3 245 195 4 17.9 306 290 5 17.0 290 318 6 16.0 273 332 7 11.6 198 212 8 4.1 69 92 9 2.1 35 52 10+ 3.0 51 66 Weighted percent Number of households Weighted Unweighted Education of household head  None 12.3 210 237 Primary 70.4 1204 1217 Secondary 16.4 280 240 Higher 1.0 17 17 Total 100.0 1711 1711 Households with at least  One child age 0–4 years 47.5 1711 1711 One child age 0–17 years 78.2 1711 1711 One woman age 15–49 years 81.7 1711 1711 One man age 15–29 years 50.0 1711 1711 Mean household size 4.8 1711 1711 Table HH.3R: Household composition, Roma Settlements, 2010 Percent and frequency distribution of households by selected characteristics MONITORING THE SITUATION OF CHILDREN AND WOMEN 41 Figure HH.1R: Age and sex distribution of household population, Roma settlements, 2010 MULTIPLE INDICATOR CLUSTER SURVEY 201042 Table HH.3R provides basic background information Table HH.3R provides basic background information on the households. Within households, the sex of the on the households. Within households, the sex of the household head, residence, number of household members household head, residence, number of household members and education of the household head, are shown in the and education of the household head, are shown in the table. These background characteristics are used in table. These background characteristics are used in subsequent tables in this report; the figures in the table subsequent tables in this report; the figures in the table are also intended to show the numbers of observations by are also intended to show the numbers of observations by major categories of analysis in the report.major categories of analysis in the report. The weighted and the unweighted numbers of households The weighted and the unweighted numbers of households are equal, since sample weights were normalized (See are equal, since sample weights were normalized (See Appendix A). The table also shows the proportion of Appendix A). The table also shows the proportion of households with at least one child under 18, at least one households with at least one child under 18, at least one child under 5, at least one eligible woman aged 15–49 and child under 5, at least one eligible woman aged 15–49 and at least one eligible man aged 15–29. The table also shows at least one eligible man aged 15–29. The table also shows the weighted average household size estimated by the the weighted average household size estimated by the survey.survey. Gender structure for the heads of households Gender structure for the heads of households indicates that 86 percent are men. About 70 percent indicates that 86 percent are men. About 70 percent of households are urban, while the rest are rural. of households are urban, while the rest are rural. The majority of households (about 77 percent) have The majority of households (about 77 percent) have three to seven members. In 82 percent of interviewed three to seven members. In 82 percent of interviewed households, there is at least one woman aged 15 to 49 households, there is at least one woman aged 15 to 49 and in 50 percent of interviewed households at least and in 50 percent of interviewed households at least one man aged 15–29 years. In 48 percent of interviewed one man aged 15–29 years. In 48 percent of interviewed households there is at least one child under 5 years of households there is at least one child under 5 years of age, and in 78 percent a child under 18. The survey age, and in 78 percent a child under 18. The survey estimated the average household size at 4.8 persons.estimated the average household size at 4.8 persons. Characteristics of FemaleCharacteristics of Female Respondents 15–49 Years of Age,Respondents 15–49 Years of Age, Male Respondents 15–29 YearsMale Respondents 15–29 Years of Age and Children Under-5of Age and Children Under-5 Tables HH.4R, HH.4R.M and HH.5R provide Tables HH.4R, HH.4R.M and HH.5R provide information on the background characteristics of information on the background characteristics of female respondents 15–49 years of age, men 15–29 female respondents 15–49 years of age, men 15–29 years of age, and of children under the age of 5. In years of age, and of children under the age of 5. In all the tables, the total numbers of weighted and all the tables, the total numbers of weighted and unweighted observations are equal, since sample unweighted observations are equal, since sample weights have been normalized (standardized). In weights have been normalized (standardized). In addition to providing useful information on the addition to providing useful information on the background characteristics of women, men and background characteristics of women, men and children, the tables are also intended to show the children, the tables are also intended to show the numbers of observations in each background category. numbers of observations in each background category. These categories are used in the subsequent tabulations These categories are used in the subsequent tabulations of this report.of this report. Table HH.4R: Women’s background characteristics, Roma Settlements, 2010 Percent and frequency distribution of women age 15–49 years by selected background characteristics Weighted percent Number of women Weighted Unweighted Area  Urban 69.0 1461 1369 Rural 31.0 657 749 Age  15–19 20.2 429 373 20–24 16.7 354 439 25–29 17.1 363 407 30–34 15.1 320 294 35–39 11.8 251 234 40–44 9.1 193 193 45–49 9.8 208 178 Marital/Union status  Currently married/in union 76.6 1622 1690 Formerly married/in union 9.7 205 205 Never married/in union 13.7 291 223 Motherhood status  Ever gave birth 80.8 1711 1798 Never gave birth 19.2 407 320 Births in last two years  Yes 20.8 440 550 No 79.2 1678 1568 Education  None 17.1 363 398 Primary 67.8 1437 1454 Secondary 13.9 295 251 Higher 1.1 24 15 Wealth index quintile  Poorest 18.7 396 487 Second 19.1 404 429 Middle 19.1 404 396 Fourth 22.1 468 418 Richest 21.1 447 388 Total 100.0 2118 2118 MULTIPLE INDICATOR CLUSTER SURVEY 201042 MONITORING THE SITUATION OF CHILDREN AND WOMEN 43 Table HH.4R provides background characteristics of Table HH.4R provides background characteristics of female respondents aged between 15–49 years. The female respondents aged between 15–49 years. The table includes information on the distribution of women table includes information on the distribution of women according to residence, age, marital status, motherhood according to residence, age, marital status, motherhood status, births in the two years preceding the survey, status, births in the two years preceding the survey, educationeducation6 and wealth index quintiles. and wealth index quintiles. Approximately, 69 percent of interviewed eligible women Approximately, 69 percent of interviewed eligible women live in urban areas. The age distribution of women between live in urban areas. The age distribution of women between 25–49 is similar to the distribution of the overall population. 25–49 is similar to the distribution of the overall population. Almost 77 percent of all women in this sample are married, Almost 77 percent of all women in this sample are married, 6 Unless otherwise stated, throughout this report “education” refers to the educational level attained by the respondent when it is used as a background variable. 7 A principal components analysis was performed by using information on the ownership of consumer goods, dwelling characteristics, water and sanitation, and other characteristics that are related to the household’s wealth to assign weights (factor scores) to each of the household assets. Each household was then assigned a wealth score based on these weights and the assets owned by that household. The survey household population was then ranked according to the wealth score of the household they are living in, and was finally divided into 5 equal parts (quintiles) from lowest (poorest) to highest (richest). The assets used in these calculations were as follows: type of water and sanitation, number of rooms for sleeping per member; main material of dwelling floor, roof and exterior walls; the type of fuel used for cooking; presence in household of electricity, radio, television, non-mobile telephone, refrigerator, electric stove, bed, table with chairs, vacuum cleaner, PC/Laptop, closet, washing machine, drying machine, air conditioner, jacuzzi tub and video monitoring system; possession by household members of watch, mobile telephone, bicycle, motorcycle or scooter, animal-drawn cart, car or truck, boat with motor, tractor; and ownership of bank accounts by members of the household. The wealth index is assumed to capture the underlying long-term wealth through information on the household assets, and is intended to produce a ranking of households by wealth, from poorest to richest. The wealth index does not provide information on absolute poverty, current income or expenditure levels. The wealth scores calculated are applicable for only the particular data set they are based on. Further information on the construction of the wealth index can be found in Filmer, D. and Pritchett, L., 2001. “Estimating wealth effects without expenditure data — or tears: An application to educational enrolments in states of India”. Demography 38(1): 115–132. Gwatkin, D. R., Rutstein, S., Johnson, K., Pande, R. and Wagstaff. A., 2000. Socio-Economic Differences in Health, Nutrition, and Population. HNP/Poverty Thematic Group, Washington, DC: World Bank. Rutstein, S. O. and Johnson, K., 2004. The DHS Wealth Index. DHS Comparative Reports No. 6. Calverton, Maryland: ORC Macro. while 14 percent have never been married. Distribution while 14 percent have never been married. Distribution by motherhood is similar to marital status: 81 percent of by motherhood is similar to marital status: 81 percent of women have given birth. The majority of interviewed women women have given birth. The majority of interviewed women have primary education (68 percent), while the proportion of have primary education (68 percent), while the proportion of women with no education is 17 percent. Overall, 14 percent women with no education is 17 percent. Overall, 14 percent of women between 15–49 have secondary education, and of women between 15–49 have secondary education, and only 1 percent have higher education. As far as wealth index only 1 percent have higher education. As far as wealth index quintiles are concerned, less women live in households quintiles are concerned, less women live in households within the poorest (19 percent) and second quintile (19 within the poorest (19 percent) and second quintile (19 percent), while the majority of women live in households percent), while the majority of women live in households within the richest quintile (about 21 percent of women).within the richest quintile (about 21 percent of women). Weighted percent Number of men Weighted Unweighted Area  Urban 68.2 598 540 Rural 31.8 279 337 Age  15–19 33.7 295 247 20–24 33.4 293 302 25–29 32.9 289 328 Marital/Union status  Currently married/in union 54.6 478 572 Formerly married/in union 6.5 57 41 Never married/in union 39.0 342 264 Weighted percent Number of men Weighted Unweighted Education  None 7.6 66 83 Primary 68.3 599 631 Secondary 23.1 202 153 Higher 1.0 9 10 Wealth index quintile  Poorest 21.8 191 218 Second 18.9 166 180 Middle 19.6 172 164 Fourth 21.1 185 179 Richest 18.6 163 136 Total 100.0 877 877 Table HH.4R.M provides background characteristics of Table HH.4R.M provides background characteristics of male respondents between 15–29 years of age. The table male respondents between 15–29 years of age. The table includes information on the distribution of men according includes information on the distribution of men according Table HH.4R.M: Men’s background characteristics, Roma Settlements, 2010 Percent and frequency distribution of men age 15–29 years by selected background characteristics to residence, age, marital status, education and wealth to residence, age, marital status, education and wealth index quintilesindex quintiles7. . MONITORING THE SITUATION OF CHILDREN AND WOMEN 43 MULTIPLE INDICATOR CLUSTER SURVEY 201044 Approximately, 68 percent of interviewed eligible men live Approximately, 68 percent of interviewed eligible men live in urban areas, with almost equal distribution in three age in urban areas, with almost equal distribution in three age groups (around 33 percent). Almost 55 percent of all men groups (around 33 percent). Almost 55 percent of all men in this sample are currently married, while 39 percent have in this sample are currently married, while 39 percent have never been married. The majority of interviewed men have never been married. The majority of interviewed men have primary education (68 percent), while the proportion of primary education (68 percent), while the proportion of men with no education is 8 percent, secondary education men with no education is 8 percent, secondary education 23 percent, and those with higher education only 1 23 percent, and those with higher education only 1 percent. The distribution of men between 15–29 years of percent. The distribution of men between 15–29 years of age within the wealth index quintiles is rather uniform age within the wealth index quintiles is rather uniform (19 to 22 percent).(19 to 22 percent). Some background characteristics of children under 5 are Some background characteristics of children under 5 are presented in Table HH.5R. These include the distribution presented in Table HH.5R. These include the distribution of children by several attributes: sex, residence, age, of children by several attributes: sex, residence, age, mother’s or caretaker’s education, wealth index. mother’s or caretaker’s education, wealth index. The proportion of male children in the under-5 The proportion of male children in the under-5 sample for Roma settlements is around 51 percent. Age sample for Roma settlements is around 51 percent. Age distribution shows that about 16 percent of children distribution shows that about 16 percent of children are under one year of age, while the remaining one-year are under one year of age, while the remaining one-year categories range between 19 to 23 percent. Majority categories range between 19 to 23 percent. Majority of children under 5 (69 percent) have a mother with of children under 5 (69 percent) have a mother with primary education. As for the wealth index quintiles, primary education. As for the wealth index quintiles, more Roma children under 5 live in households within more Roma children under 5 live in households within the poorest quintile (25 percent) than in the richest the poorest quintile (25 percent) than in the richest quintile (17 percent). quintile (17 percent). Table HH.5R: Under-5’s background characteristics, Roma Settlements, 2010 Percent and frequency distribution of children under five years of age by selected characteristics Weighted percent Number of under-5 children Weighted Unweighted Sex  Male 51.3 823 839 Female 48.7 781 765 Area  Urban 67.6 1084 1024 Rural 32.4 520 580 Age  0–5 months 8.4 134 123 6–11 months 7.5 121 125 12–23 months 21.0 337 335 24–35 months 22.5 360 336 36–47 months 19.0 305 288 48–59 months 21.6 347 397 Mother’s education*  None 19.9 319 358 Primary 69.2 1111 1090 Secondary 10.4 166 151 Higher .5 8 5 Wealth index quintile  Poorest 24.7 396 489 Second 23.7 380 356 Middle 17.9 288 262 Fourth 17.2 276 267 Richest 16.5 264 230 Total 100.0 1604 1604 * Mother’s education refers to educational attainment of mothers and caretakers of children under 5. MULTIPLE INDICATOR CLUSTER SURVEY 201044 MONITORING THE SITUATION OF CHILDREN AND WOMEN 45 ChildrenChildren’s Living Arrangementss Living Arrangements in Roma Settlementsin Roma Settlements Table HH.6R presents information on the living arrangementsTable HH.6R presents information on the living arrangements and orphanhood status of children under age 18 living in and orphanhood status of children under age 18 living in Roma settlements.Roma settlements. Table HH.6R: Children’s living arrangements and orphanhood, Roma Settlements, 2010 Percent distribution of children age 0–17 years according to living arrangements, percentage of children age 0–17 years in households not living with a biological parent and percentage of children who have one or both parents dead Living with both parents Living with neither parent Living with mother only Living with father only Impossible to determine Total Not living with a biological parent1 One or both parents dead2 Number of children age 0–17 years Only father alive Only mother alive Both are alive Both are dead Father alive Father dead Mother alive Mother dead Sex Male 83.4 .3 .2 1.3 .2 7.9 1.1 3.2 .6 1.7 100.0 2.0 2.7 1636 Female 80.2 .1 .3 6.2 .0 6.2 1.2 3.1 .3 2.4 100.0 6.6 2.0 1672 Area  Urban 82.7 .0 .4 3.3 .1 6.9 .9 2.7 .5 2.5 100.0 3.8 2.3 2238 Rural 79.8 .6 .0 4.9 .1 7.4 1.6 4.1 .4 1.2 100.0 5.5 2.6 1071 Age  0–4 87.3 .0 .0 .4 .0 8.8 .8 2.5 .1 .1 100.0 .4 .9 1193 5–9 81.9 .2 .1 2.1 .0 7.1 1.7 3.9 .5 2.6 100.0 2.4 2.4 917 10–14 82.9 .6 .1 3.6 .1 6.2 .8 2.3 .9 2.6 100.0 4.4 3.5 754 15–17 65.0 .1 1.7 16.7 .5 3.6 1.5 5.1 .5 5.4 100.0 19.0 4.3 444 Wealth index quintiles  Poorest 78.8 .0 .0 3.0 .0 9.9 1.9 4.3 .2 1.9 100.0 3.0 2.1 798 Second 83.4 .7 1.0 2.4 .0 6.4 1.9 2.5 1.1 .7 100.0 4.1 4.8 725 Middle 81.3 .1 .0 4.0 .5 6.0 .1 3.3 .2 4.4 100.0 4.7 1.0 622 Fourth 80.9 .0 .2 5.2 .0 8.2 .0 3.5 .2 1.9 100.0 5.4 1.8 590 Richest 85.4 .0 .0 5.0 .0 3.9 1.3 2.1 .6 1.7 100.0 5.0 1.9 575 Total 81.8 .2 .3 3.8 .1 7.0 1.1 3.2 .4 2.1 100.0 4.3 2.4 3309 1 MICS indicator 9.17 2 MICS indicator 9.18 MONITORING THE SITUATION OF CHILDREN AND WOMEN 45 MULTIPLE INDICATOR CLUSTER SURVEY 201046 Of the 3309 children age 0–17 recorded in MICS4, 82 Of the 3309 children age 0–17 recorded in MICS4, 82 percent live with both parents, 8 percent live with mothers percent live with both parents, 8 percent live with mothers only and 4 percent live with fathers only. About 4 percent only and 4 percent live with fathers only. About 4 percent live with neither of their biological parents while both of live with neither of their biological parents while both of them are alive. In total, 7 percent live with mothers only them are alive. In total, 7 percent live with mothers only while the biological father is alive. while the biological father is alive. Very few children lost one or both parents — 1 percent Very few children lost one or both parents — 1 percent of children have only their father dead and 0.4 percent of of children have only their father dead and 0.4 percent of children have only their mother dead.children have only their mother dead. Older children are less likely than younger children to live Older children are less likely than younger children to live with both parents and slightly more likely than younger with both parents and slightly more likely than younger children to have lost one or both parents. Table HH.6R children to have lost one or both parents. Table HH.6R also shows that the percentage of children living with both also shows that the percentage of children living with both parents is the highest in the richest wealth quintile (85 parents is the highest in the richest wealth quintile (85 percent) and lowest in the poorest quintile (77 percent). percent) and lowest in the poorest quintile (77 percent). Some 11 percent of children in the poorest households Some 11 percent of children in the poorest households live with their mother only while their father is alive. The live with their mother only while their father is alive. The corresponding proportion of such children in the richest corresponding proportion of such children in the richest quintile is 4 percent.quintile is 4 percent. MULTIPLE INDICATOR CLUSTER SURVEY 201046 MONITORING THE SITUATION OF CHILDREN AND WOMEN 47 One of the overarching Millennium Development Goals One of the overarching Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) is the reduction of infant and under-five mortality. (MDGs) is the reduction of infant and under-five mortality. Specifically, the MDGs call for a reduction in under-five Specifically, the MDGs call for a reduction in under-five mortality by two-thirds between 1990 and 2015. Monitoring mortality by two-thirds between 1990 and 2015. Monitoring progress towards this goal is an important but difficult progress towards this goal is an important but difficult objective. Measuring childhood mortality may seem easy, objective. Measuring childhood mortality may seem easy, but attempts that use direct questions, such as “Has anyone but attempts that use direct questions, such as “Has anyone in this household died in the last year?” usually yield in this household died in the last year?” usually yield inaccurate results. Directly measuring child mortality from inaccurate results. Directly measuring child mortality from birth histories is time consuming, expensive, and requires birth histories is time consuming, expensive, and requires greater attention to training and supervision. Alternatively, greater attention to training and supervision. Alternatively, indirect methods developed to measure child mortality indirect methods developed to measure child mortality can produce robust estimates that are comparable with can produce robust estimates that are comparable with the ones obtained from other sources. Indirect methods the ones obtained from other sources. Indirect methods also minimize the pitfalls of memory lapses, inexact or also minimize the pitfalls of memory lapses, inexact or misinterpreted definitions, and poor interviewing technique. misinterpreted definitions, and poor interviewing technique. IVIV CHILD MORTALITY CHILD MORTALITY 8 United Nations. 1983. Manual X: Indirect Techniques for Demographic Estimation (United Nations publication, Sales No. E.83.XIII.2); United Nations. 1990a. QFIVE — United Nations Program for Child Mortality Estimation; United Nations. 1990b. Step-by-step Guide to the Estimation of Child Mortality. The infant mortality rate is the probability of dying before the The infant mortality rate is the probability of dying before the first birthday. The under-five mortality rate is the probability first birthday. The under-five mortality rate is the probability of dying before the fifth birthday. In MICS surveys, infant of dying before the fifth birthday. In MICS surveys, infant and under five mortality rates are usually calculated based and under five mortality rates are usually calculated based on an indirect estimation technique known as the Brass on an indirect estimation technique known as the Brass methodmethod8. The data used in the estimation are: the mean . The data used in the estimation are: the mean number of total children born for five year-age groups of number of total children born for five year-age groups of women from age 15 to 49, and the proportion of these children women from age 15 to 49, and the proportion of these children who are dead, also for five-year age groups of women (Table who are dead, also for five-year age groups of women (Table CM.1R). The technique converts the proportion of dead CM.1R). The technique converts the proportion of dead children among women in each age group into probabilities children among women in each age group into probabilities of dying by taking into account the approximate length of of dying by taking into account the approximate length of exposure of children to the risk of dying, assuming a particular exposure of children to the risk of dying, assuming a particular model age pattern of mortality. Based on previous information model age pattern of mortality. Based on previous information on mortality in Roma settlements in Serbia, the East modelon mortality in Roma settlements in Serbia, the East model life table was selected as most appropriate. life table was selected as most appropriate. Table CM.1R: Children ever born, children surviving and proportion dead, Roma Settlements, 2010 Mean and total numbers of children ever born, children surviving and proportion dead by age of women Children ever born Children surviving Proportion dead Number of women Mean Total Mean Total Age  15–19 .432 185 .426 183 .012 429 20–24 1.587 561 1.575 557 .008 354 25–29 2.378 863 2.349 853 .012 363 30–34 2.766 886 2.716 870 .018 320 35–39 3.036 761 2.969 744 .022 251 40–44 3.104 600 2.986 577 .038 193 45–49 2.774 578 2.583 538 .069 208 Total 2.094 4434 2.040 4322 .025 2118 MONITORING THE SITUATION OF CHILDREN AND WOMEN 47 MULTIPLE INDICATOR CLUSTER SURVEY 201048 The module on child mortality was used only for Roma The module on child mortality was used only for Roma settlements because there are no data in the regular settlements because there are no data in the regular statistics and it is estimated that values are higher than statistics and it is estimated that values are higher than the national average. Secondly, it was estimated that the the national average. Secondly, it was estimated that the regular statistics provided accurate data for the general regular statistics provided accurate data for the general population, and also that mortality is low, so with this population, and also that mortality is low, so with this research technique we could not compile reliable data.research technique we could not compile reliable data. Table CM.2R provides estimates of child mortality. The Table CM.2R provides estimates of child mortality. The infant mortality rate is estimated at 14 per thousand live infant mortality rate is estimated at 14 per thousand live births, while births, while the probability of dying under age 5 (U5MR) the probability of dying under age 5 (U5MR) is around 15 per thousand live births. These estimates is around 15 per thousand live births. These estimates have been calculated by averaging mortality estimates have been calculated by averaging mortality estimates obtained from women aged 25–29 and 30–34, and refer to obtained from women aged 25–29 and 30–34, and refer to mid-2003. There is a difference between the probabilities mid-2003. There is a difference between the probabilities of dying between males and females. The infant mortality of dying between males and females. The infant mortality rate among boys is 18 and among girls 9, and the under-rate among boys is 18 and among girls 9, and the under- five mortality rate among boys is 19, compared to 10 five mortality rate among boys is 19, compared to 10 per thousand live births among per thousand live births among girls. The highest infant girls. The highest infant mortality rates (26 per thousand live births) mortality rates (26 per thousand live births) and under-and under- five mortality rates (29 per thousand live births) are five mortality rates (29 per thousand live births) are among Roma children whose mothers had no education. among Roma children whose mothers had no education. It is important to mention that mothers of almost 20 It is important to mention that mothers of almost 20 percent of Roma children had no education (Table HH.5R). percent of Roma children had no education (Table HH.5R). Differentials in under-five mortality rates by selected Differentials in under-five mortality rates by selected background characteristics are shown in Figure CM.1R.background characteristics are shown in Figure CM.1R. Table CM.2R: Child mortality, Roma Settlements, 2010 Infant and under-five mortality rates, Model — East   Infant mortality rate1 Under-fivemortality rate2 Sex  Male 18 19 Female 9 10 Area  Urban 14 15 Rural 12 13 Mother’s education  None 26 29 Attended school 11 12 Total 14 15 1 MICS indicator 1.2; MDG indicator 4.2 2 MICS indicator 1.1; MDG indicator 4.1 MULTIPLE INDICATOR CLUSTER SURVEY 201048 Figure CM.1R: Under-5 mortality rates by background characteristics, Roma settlements, 2010 MONITORING THE SITUATION OF CHILDREN AND WOMEN 49 Nutritional StatusNutritional Status Children’s nutritional status is a reflection of their overall Children’s nutritional status is a reflection of their overall health. When children have access to an adequate food health. When children have access to an adequate food supply, are not exposed to repeated illness, and are well supply, are not exposed to repeated illness, and are well cared for, they reach their growth potential and are cared for, they reach their growth potential and are considered well nourished.considered well nourished. Malnutrition is associated with more than half of all Malnutrition is associated with more than half of all child deaths worldwide. Undernourished children are child deaths worldwide. Undernourished children are more likely to die from common childhood ailments, and more likely to die from common childhood ailments, and those who survive, tend to have recurring sicknesses and those who survive, tend to have recurring sicknesses and faltering growth. Three-quarters of the children who die faltering growth. Three-quarters of the children who die from malnutrition-related causes were only mildly or from malnutrition-related causes were only mildly or moderately malnourished, showing no outward sign of moderately malnourished, showing no outward sign of their vulnerability. The Millennium Development target their vulnerability. The Millennium Development target is to reduce by half the proportion of people who suffer is to reduce by half the proportion of people who suffer from hunger between 1990 and 2015. A reduction in the from hunger between 1990 and 2015. A reduction in the prevalence of malnutrition will also assist in the goal to prevalence of malnutrition will also assist in the goal to reduce child mortality.reduce child mortality. In a well-nourished population, there is a reference In a well-nourished population, there is a reference distribution of height and weight for children under the age distribution of height and weight for children under the age of five. Under-nourishment in a population can be gauged by of five. Under-nourishment in a population can be gauged by comparing children to a reference population. The reference comparing children to a reference population. The reference population used in this report is based on newpopulation used in this report is based on new9 WHO WHO growth standardsgrowth standards1010. Each of the three nutritional status . Each of the three nutritional status indicators can be expressed in standard deviation units indicators can be expressed in standard deviation units (z-scores) from the median of the reference population. (z-scores) from the median of the reference population. Weight-for-age is a measure of both acute and chronic Weight-for-age is a measure of both acute and chronic malnutrition. Children whose weight-for-age is more malnutrition. Children whose weight-for-age is more V NUTRITION NUTRITION 9 The reference population used in MICS3 report was WHO/CDC/NCHS reference that was recommended by UNICEF and WHO at the time the MICS3 survey was implemented. 10 http://www.who.int/childgrowth/standards/second_set/technical_report_2.pdf than two standard deviations below the median of the than two standard deviations below the median of the reference population are considered reference population are considered moderately or severely moderately or severely underweight underweight while those whose weight-for-age is more while those whose weight-for-age is more than three standard deviations below the median are than three standard deviations below the median are classified as classified as severely underweightseverely underweight. Height-for-age is a measure of linear growth. Children Height-for-age is a measure of linear growth. Children whose height-for-age is more than two standard whose height-for-age is more than two standard deviations below the median of the reference population deviations below the median of the reference population are considered short for their age and are classified as are considered short for their age and are classified as moderately or severely stuntedmoderately or severely stunted. Those whose height-for-age . Those whose height-for-age is more than three standard deviations below the median is more than three standard deviations below the median are classified as are classified as severely stuntedseverely stunted. Stunting is a reflection . Stunting is a reflection of chronic malnutrition as a result of failure to receive of chronic malnutrition as a result of failure to receive adequate nutrition over a long period, and recurrent adequate nutrition over a long period, and recurrent or or chronic illness. chronic illness. Finally, children whose weight-for-height is more Finally, children whose weight-for-height is more than two standard deviations below the median of the than two standard deviations below the median of the reference population are classified as reference population are classified as moderately or moderately or severely wastedseverely wasted, while those who fall more than three , while those who fall more than three standard deviations below the median are classified standard deviations below the median are classified as as severely wastedseverely wasted. Wasting is usually the result of a . Wasting is usually the result of a recent nutritional deficiency. recent nutritional deficiency. In MICS, weights and heights of all children under In MICS, weights and heights of all children under 5 years of age were measured using anthropometric 5 years of age were measured using anthropometric equipment recommended by UNICEF (www.childinfo.org). equipment recommended by UNICEF (www.childinfo.org). Findings in this section are based on the results of Findings in this section are based on the results of these measurements.these measurements. MULTIPLE INDICATOR CLUSTER SURVEY 201050 Table NU.1 shows the percentages of children classified Table NU.1 shows the percentages of children classified into each of these categories, based on anthropometric into each of these categories, based on anthropometric measurements taken during fieldwork. Additionally, measurements taken during fieldwork. Additionally, the table includes the percentage of children who are the table includes the percentage of children who are Table NU.1: Nutritional status of children, Serbia, 2010 Percentage of children under age 5 by nutritional status according to three anthropometric indices: weight for age, height for age, and weight for height   Weight for age Number of children under age 5 Height for age Number of children under age 5 Weight for height Number of children under age 5 Underweight Mean Z-Score (SD) Stunted Mean Z-Score (SD) Wasted Overweight Mean Z-Score (SD) percent below percent below percent below percent above –2 SD1 –3 SD2 –2 SD3 –3 SD4 –2 SD5 –3 SD6 + 2 SD Sex  Male 1.5 .5 .7 1472 5.9 2.7 .4 1337 2.7 .7 16.6 .7 1308 Female 1.7 .5 .6 1532 7.2 3.7 .2 1408 4.2 .8 14.7 .6 1391 Region  Belgrade 4.8 2.2 .6 583 8.3 4.3 .4 565 4.9 1.1 12.4 .5 547 Vojvodina .6 .1 .6 933 5.1 1.9 .3 879 3.7 .5 12.5 .6 864 Sumadija and Western Serbia 1.0 .1 .8 694 5.6 3.0 .4 639 1.5 .5 19.9 .8 632 Southern and Eastern Serbia .9 .1 .7 794 8.1 4.2 .2 661 4.1 1.1 18.3 .8 656 Area  Urban 1.8 .4 .7 1657 5.5 1.8 .4 1531 3.8 .9 13.5 .6 1501 Rural 1.3 .7 .6 1348 7.9 5.0 .2 1214 3.1 .6 18.2 .7 1198 Age  0–5 months 7.7 2.9 –.3 239 8.0 6.5 .1 226 13.0 3.3 7.6 –.3 219 6–11 months 1.4 .7 .6 270 10.4 6.3 .2 237 2.7 1.7 18.4 .8 237 12–23 months .8 .3 1.0 575 9.5 4.9 .3 504 3.6 .2 24.1 1.1 502 24–35 months 2.6 .7 .7 674 6.5 2.5 .3 606 2.9 .5 15.0 .7 597 36–47 months .2 .0 .8 574 5.3 2.0 .5 534 2.8 .5 15.8 .8 528 48–59 months .3 .1 .6 672 3.5 1.2 .4 638 1.6 .5 10.9 .5 616 Mother’s education  Primary 1.7 .5 .4 423 7.6 4.0 –.1 386 2.8 1.5 16.3 .6 381 Secondary 2.1 .8 .7 1754 7.6 3.9 .3 1600 3.8 .4 17.7 .7 1565 Higher .4 .0 .8 796 3.5 .9 .5 729 3.4 1.2 10.8 .5 723 Wealth index quintile  Poorest 3.0 1.8 .4 530 9.3 6.1 –.1 488 5.2 1.3 15.5 .6 486 Second 2.1 .9 .5 566 9.1 4.5 .1 528 1.2 .3 16.8 .7 516 Middle .6 .2 .7 552 6.3 3.3 .4 496 2.9 .4 16.8 .7 485 Fourth .1 .0 .8 603 6.0 2.0 .5 544 3.2 .5 17.9 .7 527 Richest 2.1 .0 .8 753 3.4 .9 .5 690 4.7 1.2 12.1 .6 684 Total 1.6 .5 .7 3004 6.6 3.2 .3 2745 3.5 .8 15.6 .7 2699 1 MICS indicator 2.1a and MDG indicator 1.8 2 MICS indicator 2.1b 3 MICS indicator 2.2a, 4 MICS indicator 2.2b 5 MICS indicator 2.3a, 6 MICS indicator 2.3b overweight, which takes into account those children whose overweight, which takes into account those children whose weight for height is above 2 standard deviations from the weight for height is above 2 standard deviations from the median of the reference population, and mean z-scores for median of the reference population, and mean z-scores for all three anthropometric indicators.all three anthropometric indicators. MONITORING THE SITUATION OF CHILDREN AND WOMEN 51 Children whose measurements are outside a plausible Children whose measurements are outside a plausible range are excluded from Table NU.1. Children are range are excluded from Table NU.1. Children are excluded from one or more of the anthropometric excluded from one or more of the anthropometric indicators when their weight or height (whichever indicators when their weight or height (whichever is applicable) has not been measured. For example is applicable) has not been measured. For example if a child has been weighed but his/her height has not if a child has been weighed but his/her height has not been measured, the child is included in underweight been measured, the child is included in underweight calculations, but not in the calculations for stunting and calculations, but not in the calculations for stunting and wasting. Percentages of children by age and reasons for wasting. Percentages of children by age and reasons for exclusion are shown in the data quality Tables DQ.8 exclusion are shown in the data quality Tables DQ.8 and DQ.9. Overall, 79 percent of children had both their and DQ.9. Overall, 79 percent of children had both their weight and height measured (Table DQ.9). Table DQ.9 weight and height measured (Table DQ.9). Table DQ.9 shows that due to incomplete dates of birth, implausible shows that due to incomplete dates of birth, implausible measurements, and missing weight and/or height, 11 measurements, and missing weight and/or height, 11 percent of children have been excluded from calculations percent of children have been excluded from calculations of the weight-for-age indicator, while the figures are 19 of the weight-for-age indicator, while the figures are 19 percent for the height-for-age indicator, and 21 percent percent for the height-for-age indicator, and 21 percent for the weight-for-height indicator.for the weight-for-height indicator. Nearly 2 percent of children under-five in Serbia are Nearly 2 percent of children under-five in Serbia are moderately underweight, while 1 percent of children are moderately underweight, while 1 percent of children are classified as severely underweight (Table NU.1). Some 7 classified as severely underweight (Table NU.1). Some 7 percent of children are moderately stunted or too short for percent of children are moderately stunted or too short for their age and 4 percent are moderately wasted or too thin their age and 4 percent are moderately wasted or too thin for their height.for their height. The prevalence of underweight children is higher in The prevalence of underweight children is higher in urban than in rural areas. Regional distribution patterns urban than in rural areas. Regional distribution patterns show that the highest proportion of underweight show that the highest proportion of underweight children is in Belgrade (5 percent). The percentage of children is in Belgrade (5 percent). The percentage of underweight children found in the youngest age group underweight children found in the youngest age group (0–5 months) exceeds (8 percent moderately and 3 (0–5 months) exceeds (8 percent moderately and 3 percent severely) the average. Low level of wealth is percent severely) the average. Low level of wealth is also a background characteristic contributing to the also a background characteristic contributing to the prevalence of underweight children (3 percent among prevalence of underweight children (3 percent among the poorest quintile). Children whose mothers have the poorest quintile). Children whose mothers have higher and/or high education are least likely to be higher and/or high education are least likely to be underweight (0.4 percent). underweight (0.4 percent). Table NU.1 shows that children in Belgrade and children Table NU.1 shows that children in Belgrade and children in Southern and Eastern Serbia are more likely to be in Southern and Eastern Serbia are more likely to be stunted and wasted, than children from other regions. stunted and wasted, than children from other regions. Moreover, girls seem more likely to be stunted and Moreover, girls seem more likely to be stunted and wasted than boys. The prevalence of moderate stunting wasted than boys. The prevalence of moderate stunting is higher among children from the poorest quintile is higher among children from the poorest quintile (9 percent). The most vulnerable group in terms of (9 percent). The most vulnerable group in terms of moderate stunting are children 6–11 months of age moderate stunting are children 6–11 months of age (10 percent).(10 percent). There is no large difference in wasting rates between There is no large difference in wasting rates between urban and rural children but there are notable differences urban and rural children but there are notable differences between regions. The prevalence of wasting ranges from between regions. The prevalence of wasting ranges from 2 percent in Sumadija and Western Serbia to 5 percent 2 percent in Sumadija and Western Serbia to 5 percent in Belgrade. Wasting is most prominent in the youngest in Belgrade. Wasting is most prominent in the youngest age group of children 0–5 months (13 percent), among age group of children 0–5 months (13 percent), among children from both the poorest and richest quintileschildren from both the poorest and richest quintiles (5 percent).(5 percent). Almost one in six children under the age of five in Serbia Almost one in six children under the age of five in Serbia are overweight (16 percent). Overweight affects all age are overweight (16 percent). Overweight affects all age groups and is more prevalent in rural then in urban groups and is more prevalent in rural then in urban areas. It increases as of the 6th month of life, and peaks areas. It increases as of the 6th month of life, and peaks at 23 months of age, when it affects every fourth child at 23 months of age, when it affects every fourth child (24 percent). (24 percent). Figure NU.1: Percentage of children under age 5 who are underweight, stunted and wasted, Serbia, 2010 MULTIPLE INDICATOR CLUSTER SURVEY 201052 For both comparison with MICS3 as well as global For both comparison with MICS3 as well as global reporting purposes the table NU.1 (a) based onreporting purposes the table NU.1 (a) based on Table NU.1 (a): Nutritional status of children (based on NCHS/CDC/WHO International Reference Population), Serbia, 2010 Percentage of children under age 5 by nutritional status according to three anthropometric indices: weight for age, height for age, and weight for height   Weight for age Number of children under age 5 Height for age Number of children under age 5 Weight for height Number of children under age 5 Underweight Mean Z-Score (SD) Stunted Mean Z-Score (SD) Wasted Overweight Mean Z-Score (SD) percent below percent below percent below percent above –2 SD1 –3 SD2 –2 SD3 –3 SD4 –2 SD5 –3 SD6 +2 SD Sex  Male 1.4 .9 .6 1472 4.9 2.1 .5 1337 2.4 .6 12.0 .5 1308 Female 2.0 .1 .6 1532 6.5 3.1 .4 1408 2.2 .6 13.4 .6 1391 Region  Belgrade 3.7 2.1 .5 583 7.4 4.1 .6 565 3.7 .7 11.0 .5 547 Vojvodina 1.1 .1 .5 933 4.2 1.7 .4 879 2.0 .9 8.9 .4 864 Sumadija and Western Serbia 1.2 .1 .8 694 4.6 2.7 .6 639 1.3 .0 15.2 .7 632 Southern and Eastern Serbia 1.4 .1 .6 794 7.5 2.5 .4 661 2.5 .6 16.8 .7 656 Area  Urban 2.0 .8 .6 1657 4.5 1.3 .6 1531 2.7 .7 10.7 .5 1501 Rural 1.3 .2 .6 1348 7.3 4.3 .4 1214 1.8 .5 15.3 .6 1198 Age  0–5 months 3.1 .0 .2 239 6.8 4.1 .1 226 2.8 1.9 10.4 .4 219 6–11 months 1.3 .4 .5 270 9.2 5.4 .0 237 3.2 1.2 16.3 .6 237 12–23 months 1.3 .3 .7 575 9.2 4.3 .2 504 3.5 1.0 21.0 .8 502 24–35 months 3.5 1.7 .5 674 4.3 1.6 .7 606 2.9 .3 9.1 .4 597 36–47 months 1.3 .0 .7 574 5.2 2.0 .7 534 1.6 .1 12.2 .6 528 48–59 months .3 .1 .7 672 3.2 1.2 .6 638 .9 .2 9.4 .5 616 Mother’s education  Primary 1.3 .3 .4 423 6.4 4.0 .1 386 2.6 1.0 11.4 .5 381 Secondary 2.5 .8 .6 1754 6.9 3.0 .5 1600 2.3 .5 15.1 .6 1565 Higher .2 .0 .7 796 2.5 .6 .7 729 2.2 .7 8.3 .4 723 Wealth index quintile  Poorest 2.7 .4 .3 530 8.7 5.7 .1 488 3.6 .9 12.5 .6 486 Second 3.6 .9 .5 566 7.9 4.0 .3 528 .7 .3 13.1 .6 516 Middle .5 .1 .7 552 5.2 2.4 .6 496 1.7 1.1 13.9 .5 485 Fourth .8 .0 .8 603 5.6 1.1 .7 544 2.1 .1 14.6 .6 527 Richest 1.2 .9 .7 753 2.5 .7 .6 690 3.3 .6 10.3 .5 684 Total 1.7 .5 .6 3004 5.7 2.6 .5 2745 2.3 .6 12.7 .6 2699 1 MICS indicator 2.1a and MDG indicator 1.8 2 MICS indicator 2.1b 3 MICS indicator 2.2a, 4 MICS indicator 2.2b 5 MICS indicator 2.3a, 6 MICS indicator 2.3b NCHS/CDC/WHO International Reference Population NCHS/CDC/WHO International Reference Population is created (see table below).is created (see table below). MONITORING THE SITUATION OF CHILDREN AND WOMEN 53 Table NU.1R: Nutritional status of children, Roma Settlements, 2010 Percentage of children under age 5 by nutritional status according to three anthropometric indices: weight for age, height for age, and weight for height   Weight for age Number of children under age 5 Height for age Number of children under age 5 Weight for height Number of children under age 5 Underweight Mean Z-Score (SD) Stunted Mean Z-Score (SD) Wasted Overweight Mean Z-Score (SD) percent below percent below percent below percent above –2 SD1 –3 SD2 –2 SD3 –3 SD4 –2 SD5 –3 SD6 +2 SD Sex Male 6.6 1.3 –.1 718 24.6 11.2 –.8 656 4.5 2.5 12.8 .4 634 Female 6.5 1.6 –.1 694 22.5 8.2 –.7 616 6.0 2.4 12.7 .4 602 Area  Urban 5.2 .9 .0 940 19.3 8.0 –.5 848 4.9 2.3 13.9 .5 811 Rural 9.3 2.5 –.4 472 32.1 13.2 –1.3 424 5.9 2.7 10.5 .4 425 Age  0–5 months 8.1 6.2 –.6 120 35.5 14.4 –1.1 95 8.1 3.1 18.2 .4 84 6–11 months 1.9 .0 .2 102 20.1 13.8 –.8 91 2.2 .4 17.8 .7 88 12–23 months 8.7 1.8 –.1 304 36.9 19.2 –1.4 261 7.1 1.3 20.2 .7 270 24–35 months 7.3 .8 –.1 315 18.6 6.3 –.6 285 5.8 3.1 10.3 .4 288 36–47 months 3.8 1.2 –.2 267 17.9 6.3 –.6 250 6.0 5.0 10.0 .3 246 48–59 months 7.1 .6 –.1 303 18.6 4.6 –.4 290 2.0 .9 6.9 .3 260 Mother’s education  None 8.5 2.3 –.3 277 32.8 12.2 –1.2 250 3.8 .6 10.8 .6 243 Primary 6.7 1.2 –.1 989 22.7 9.9 –.7 892 5.4 2.6 13.1 .4 871 Secondary 2.4 1.3 .1 139 11.7 3.6 .0 122 7.3 5.1 13.5 .4 115 Wealth index quintile  Poorest 11.4 3.2 –.4 352 39.3 14.9 –1.4 315 3.2 .6 11.7 .7 307 Second 5.4 1.5 –.2 335 23.7 11.0 –1.1 307 1.9 .9 12.3 .5 301 Middle 2.2 .7 .1 253 16.6 7.5 –.2 224 11.9 6.6 13.5 .2 213 Fourth 7.3 .2 .0 245 17.7 7.4 –.7 226 3.6 1.3 15.5 .4 224 Richest 5.0 .8 .1 227 13.1 4.6 .0 199 8.1 4.4 11.0 .3 191 Total 6.6 1.4 –.1 1412 23.6 9.7 –.8 1272 5.2 2.4 12.8 .4 1236 1 MICS indicator 2.1a and MDG indicator 1.8 2 MICS indicator 2.1b 3 MICS indicator 2.2a, 4 MICS indicator 2.2b 5 MICS indicator 2.3a, 6 MICS indicator 2.3b Nutritional Status of ChildrenNutritional Status of Children in Roma Settlementsin Roma Settlements Table NU.1R shows the percentages of Roma children Table NU.1R shows the percentages of Roma children classified into each of these categories, based on the classified into each of these categories, based on the anthropometric measurements that were taken during anthropometric measurements that were taken during fieldwork. Additionally, the table includes the percentage fieldwork. Additionally, the table includes the percentage of children who are overweight, which takes into account of children who are overweight, which takes into account those children whose weight for height is above 2 standard those children whose weight for height is above 2 standard deviations from the median of the reference population, deviations from the median of the reference population, and mean z-scores for all three anthropometric indicators.and mean z-scores for all three anthropometric indicators. Children whose measurements are outside a plausible Children whose measurements are outside a plausible range are excluded from Table NU.1R. Children are range are excluded from Table NU.1R. Children are excluded from one or more of the anthropometric excluded from one or more of the anthropometric MONITORING THE SITUATION OF CHILDREN AND WOMEN 53 MULTIPLE INDICATOR CLUSTER SURVEY 201054 indicators when their weight and height, whichever indicators when their weight and height, whichever is applicable, have not been measured. For example if is applicable, have not been measured. For example if a child has been weighed but his/her height has not a child has been weighed but his/her height has not been measured, the child is included in underweight been measured, the child is included in underweight calculations, but not in the calculations for stunting and calculations, but not in the calculations for stunting and wasting. Percentages of children by age and reasons for wasting. Percentages of children by age and reasons for exclusion are shown in the data quality tables DQ.8R and exclusion are shown in the data quality tables DQ.8R and DQ.9R. Overall, 79 percent of children had both their DQ.9R. Overall, 79 percent of children had both their weight and height measured (Table DQ.9R). Table DQ.9R weight and height measured (Table DQ.9R). Table DQ.9R shows that due to incomplete dates of birth, implausible shows that due to incomplete dates of birth, implausible measurements, and missing weight and/or height, 11 measurements, and missing weight and/or height, 11 percent of children have been excluded from calculations percent of children have been excluded from calculations of the weight-for-age indicator, while the figures are 19 of the weight-for-age indicator, while the figures are 19 percent for the height-for-age indicator, and 21 percent percent for the height-for-age indicator, and 21 percent for the weight-for-height indicator.for the weight-for-height indicator. Nearly 7 percent of children under-five in Roma settlements Nearly 7 percent of children under-five in Roma settlements in Serbia are moderately underweight, while 1 percent in Serbia are moderately underweight, while 1 percent of children are classified as severely underweight (Table of children are classified as severely underweight (Table NU.1R). Every fourth child is moderately stunted or too NU.1R). Every fourth child is moderately stunted or too short for their age while 10 percent are severely stunted. short for their age while 10 percent are severely stunted. Five percent are moderately wasted or too thin for their Five percent are moderately wasted or too thin for their height (Figure NU.1R).height (Figure NU.1R). The prevalence of underweight children among inhabitants The prevalence of underweight children among inhabitants of Roma settlements from the poorest quintile is 11 percent of Roma settlements from the poorest quintile is 11 percent and is higher in rural (9 percent) than in urban areas (5 and is higher in rural (9 percent) than in urban areas (5 percent). Differences in stunting prevalence between percent). Differences in stunting prevalence between areas (32 percent in rural vs. 19 percent in urban), wealth areas (32 percent in rural vs. 19 percent in urban), wealth quintile groups and mothers’ education are also high. quintile groups and mothers’ education are also high. A very alarming finding is that one in five children from A very alarming finding is that one in five children from Roma settlements aged 1–2 years is severely stunted. Roma settlements aged 1–2 years is severely stunted. Some 13 percent of boys and girls from Roma settlements Some 13 percent of boys and girls from Roma settlements are overweight. The high overweight rate is present in are overweight. The high overweight rate is present in children from Roma settlements among the age group children from Roma settlements among the age group 0–5 months (18 percent) and it reaches its maximum by 0–5 months (18 percent) and it reaches its maximum by the age of 2 (20 percent). the age of 2 (20 percent). MULTIPLE INDICATOR CLUSTER SURVEY 201054 Figure NU.1R: Percentage of children under age 5 who are underweight, stunted and wasted, Roma settlements, 2010 MONITORING THE SITUATION OF CHILDREN AND WOMEN 55 For both comparison with MICS3 as well as global For both comparison with MICS3 as well as global reporting purposes the table NU.1R (a) based reporting purposes the table NU.1R (a) based MONITORING THE SITUATION OF CHILDREN AND WOMEN 55 Table NU.1R (a): Nutritional status of children (based on NCHS/CDC/WHO International Reference Population), Roma Settlements, 2010 Percentage of children under age 5 by nutritional status according to three anthropometric indices: weight for age, height for age, and weight for height   Weight for age Number of children under age 5 Height for age Number of children under age 5 Weight for height Number of children under age 5 Underweight Mean Z-Score (SD) Stunted Mean Z-Score (SD) Wasted Overweight Mean Z-Score (SD) percent below percent below percent below percent above –2 SD1 –3 SD2 –2 SD3 –3 SD4 –2 SD5 –3 SD6 +2 SD Sex  Male 8.2 1.0 –.2 718 21.5 9.0 –.7 656 3.8 1.9 8.9 .2 634 Female 8.5 1.1 –.2 694 18.4 7.5 –.5 616 6.0 2.3 11.2 .3 602 Area  Urban 6.6 .9 –.1 940 16.3 6.6 –.3 848 4.5 2.1 11.3 .3 811 Rural 11.8 1.3 –.5 472 27.2 11.6 –1.0 424 5.5 2.2 7.4 .2 425 Age  0–5 months 5.1 .0 –.1 120 22.4 7.7 –.8 95 3.1 1.3 22.3 1.2 84 6–11 months 2.6 .0 .0 102 17.5 12.2 –.8 91 .7 .0 15.7 .6 88 12–23 months 15.0 2.1 –.4 304 36.1 16.7 –1.3 261 7.7 1.3 18.5 .4 270 24–35 months 8.2 1.0 –.3 315 13.3 5.1 –.2 285 5.7 2.9 3.9 .0 288 36–47 months 5.5 1.2 –.3 267 13.8 6.0 –.4 250 5.9 4.5 6.4 .0 246 48–59 months 7.6 .6 –.1 303 17.3 4.6 –.2 290 2.0 .8 5.3 .2 260 Mother’s education  None 11.4 1.1 –.4 277 26.2 9.8 –1.0 250 2.3 .5 8.4 .4 243 Primary 8.3 1.1 –.2 989 19.5 8.5 –.5 892 5.3 2.2 10.0 .2 871 Secondary 3.2 .4 .1 139 10.5 3.6 .1 122 7.0 5.1 11.9 .3 115 Wealth index quintile  Poorest 16.0 2.1 –.5 352 32.7 12.5 –1.2 315 2.2 .5 8.6 .4 307 Second 6.0 1.0 –.4 335 20.3 8.9 –.9 307 2.4 .3 8.9 .4 301 Middle 5.1 .7 .0 253 15.0 6.6 .0 224 11.5 6.5 9.1 .0 213 Fourth 7.0 .0 –.2 245 13.4 7.3 –.5 226 2.7 .8 15.7 .3 224 Richest 5.0 .8 .0 227 12.3 3.3 .2 199 8.1 4.1 8.3 .2 191 Total 8.3 1.0 –.2 1412 20.0 8.2 –.6 1272 4.9 2.1 10.0 .3 1236 1 MICS indicator 2.1a and MDG indicator 1.8 2 MICS indicator 2.1b 3 MICS indicator 2.2a, 4 MICS indicator 2.2b 5 MICS indicator 2.3a, 6 MICS indicator 2.3b on NCHS/CDC/WHO International Reference on NCHS/CDC/WHO International Reference Population is created (see table below).Population is created (see table below). MULTIPLE INDICATOR CLUSTER SURVEY 201056 Breastfeeding and InfantBreastfeeding and Infant and Young Child Feedingand Young Child Feeding Breastfeeding for the first few years of life protects Breastfeeding for the first few years of life protects children from infection, provides an ideal source of children from infection, provides an ideal source of nutrients, and is economical and safe. However, many nutrients, and is economical and safe. However, many mothers stop breastfeeding too soon and there are mothers stop breastfeeding too soon and there are often pressures to switch to infant formula, which often pressures to switch to infant formula, which can contribute to growth faltering and micronutrient can contribute to growth faltering and micronutrient malnutrition and is unsafe if clean water is not readily malnutrition and is unsafe if clean water is not readily available. available. WHO/UNICEF have the following feeding WHO/UNICEF have the following feeding recommendations:recommendations: Exclusive breastfeeding for the first six monthsExclusive breastfeeding for the first six months Continued breastfeeding for two years or moreContinued breastfeeding for two years or more Safe, appropriate and adequate complementary foods Safe, appropriate and adequate complementary foods beginning at 6 monthsbeginning at 6 months Frequency of complementary feeding: 2 times per day for Frequency of complementary feeding: 2 times per day for 6–8 month olds; 3 times per day for 9–11 month olds6–8 month olds; 3 times per day for 9–11 month olds It is also recommended that breastfeeding be initiated It is also recommended that breastfeeding be initiated within one hour of birth.within one hour of birth. The indicators related to recommended child feeding The indicators related to recommended child feeding practices are as follows:practices are as follows: Early initiation of breastfeeding (within 1 hour of birth)Early initiation of breastfeeding (within 1 hour of birth) Exclusive breastfeeding rate (<6 months)Exclusive breastfeeding rate (<6 months) Predominant breastfeeding (<6 months)Predominant breastfeeding (<6 months) Continued breastfeeding rate (at 1 year and at 2 years)Continued breastfeeding rate (at 1 year and at 2 years) Duration of breastfeedingDuration of breastfeeding Age-appropriate breastfeeding (0–23 months)Age-appropriate breastfeeding (0–23 months) Introduction of solid, semi-solid and soft foodsIntroduction of solid, semi-solid and soft foods (6–8 months)(6–8 months) Minimum meal frequency (6–23 months)Minimum meal frequency (6–23 months) Milk feeding frequency for non-breastfeedingMilk feeding frequency for non-breastfeeding children (6–23 months)children (6–23 months) Bottle feeding (0–23 months)Bottle feeding (0–23 months) Table NU.2: Initial breastfeeding, Serbia, 2010 Percentage of last-born children in the 2 years preceding the survey who were ever breastfed, percentage who were breastfed within one hour of birth and within one day of birth, and percentage who received a prelacteal feed Percentage who were ever breastfed1 Percentage who were first breastfed: Percentage who received a prelacteal feed Number of last-born children in the two years preceding the survey Within one hour of birth2 Within one day of birth Region  Belgrade 93.1 8.8 64.0 51.4 91 Vojvodina 91.9 7.6 65.8 47.2 163 Sumadija and Western Serbia 88.0 9.3 62.7 41.8 144 Southern and Eastern Serbia 88.3 5.1 55.3 43.0 146 Area  Urban 91.8 8.2 60.1 49.7 281 Rural 88.4 6.9 63.7 40.6 262 Months since birth  0–5 months 88.4 7.8 58.0 53.4 115 6–11 months 87.7 4.8 60.0 39.1 131 12–23 months 91.9 8.7 64.1 44.9 298 Assistance at delivery  Skilled attendant 90.1 7.5 61.9 45.4 542 Traditional birth attendant (*) (*) (*) (*) 1 Place of delivery  Public sector health facility 90.0 7.0 61.3 46.0 534 Private sector health facility (*) (*) (*) (*) 8 Home (*) (*) (*) (*) 1 Mother’s education  Primary 91.9 7.2 65.9 41.0 79 Secondary 89.1 8.3 64.1 40.6 307 Higher 90.7 5.9 54.2 58.6 148 Wealth index quintile  Poorest 88.6 12.1 69.1 34.3 112 Second 86.5 6.0 60.4 42.5 97 Middle 91.1 7.2 56.2 42.1 87 Fourth 90.5 4.4 64.0 46.5 106 Richest 92.9 7.8 59.0 57.1 141 Total 90.1 7.6 61.9 45.3 543 1 MICS indicator 2.4 2 MICS indicator 2.5 (*) Figures that are based on less than 25 unweighted cases MONITORING THE SITUATION OF CHILDREN AND WOMEN 57 Table NU.2 provides the proportion of children born in the Table NU.2 provides the proportion of children born in the two years preceding the survey who were ever breastfed, two years preceding the survey who were ever breastfed, those who were first breastfed within one hour, and within those who were first breastfed within one hour, and within one day, of birth, and those who received a pre-lacteal one day, of birth, and those who received a pre-lacteal feed. Although breastfeeding is a very important step in feed. Although breastfeeding is a very important step in management of lactation and establishment of a physical management of lactation and establishment of a physical and emotional relationship between the baby and the mother, and emotional relationship between the baby and the mother, only 8 percent of babies were breastfed for the first time only 8 percent of babies were breastfed for the first time within one hour of birth, while 62 percent of newborns within one hour of birth, while 62 percent of newborns in Serbia started breastfeeding within one day of birth. A in Serbia started breastfeeding within one day of birth. A higher percentage (12 percent) of babies who were breastfed higher percentage (12 percent) of babies who were breastfed within the first hour of birth were born to mothers from the within the first hour of birth were born to mothers from the poorest quintile. There were no differences between regions poorest quintile. There were no differences between regions or between urban and rural settlements. Children from the or between urban and rural settlements. Children from the poorest quintile received a pre-lacteal feed only half as often poorest quintile received a pre-lacteal feed only half as often (34 percent) as children from the richest quintile (57 percent).(34 percent) as children from the richest quintile (57 percent). Table NU.3: Breastfeeding, Serbia, 2010 Percentage of living children according to breastfeeding status at selected age groups Children age 0–5 months Children age 12–15 months Children age 20–23 months Percent exclusively breastfed1 Percent pre- dominantly breastfed2 Number of children Percent breastfed (Continued breastfeeding at 1 year)3 Number of children Percent breastfed (Continued breastfeeding at 2 years)4 Number of children Sex  Male 14.0 43.9 121 23.6 115 21.4 109 Female 13.4 35.5 150 13.8 131 8.5 99 Region  Belgrade (15.8) (19.4) 56 (13.6) 41 (13.8) 30 Vojvodina 13.3 53.2 78 25.2 81 9.6 64 Sumadija and Western Serbia 12.4 35.9 67 11.7 67 17.8 50 Southern and Eastern Serbia 13.5 42.9 69 (20.0) 58 19.6 65 Area  Urban 16.1 40.8 138 21.8 141 19.1 104 Rural 11.1 37.6 133 13.7 105 11.5 105 Mother’s education  Primary (4.9) (48.0) 45 (17.8) 39 (13.0) 37 Secondary 15.2 32.6 128 16.5 145 13.4 102 Higher 15.0 44.9 91 25.5 56 19.6 68 Wealth index quintile  Poorest 10.9 38.7 67 (20.6) 51 (18.5) 49 Second (11.9) (26.3) 57 (10.3) 39 (4.0) 26 Middle (26.2) (65.0) 28 (19.7) 50 (10.8) 34 Fourth (2.8) (36.7) 45 18.2 41 (20.5) 36 Richest 19.5 41.7 74 20.4 66 16.9 63 Total 13.7 39.2 271 18.4 246 15.3 209 1 MICS indicator 2.6 2 MICS indicator 2.9 3 MICS indicator 2.7 4 MICS indicator 2.8 ( ) Figures that are based on 25–49 unweighted cases Figure NU.2: Percentage of mothers who started breastfeeding within one hour and within one day of birth, Serbia, 2010 MULTIPLE INDICATOR CLUSTER SURVEY 201058 In Table NU.3, breastfeeding status is based on the In Table NU.3, breastfeeding status is based on the reports of mothers/caretakers of children’s consumption reports of mothers/caretakers of children’s consumption of food and fluids in the 24 hours prior to the interview. of food and fluids in the 24 hours prior to the interview. Exclusively breastfedExclusively breastfed refers to infants who received only refers to infants who received only breast milk (and vitamins, mineral supplements, or breast milk (and vitamins, mineral supplements, or medicine). medicine). Predominantly breastfedPredominantly breastfed refers to infants who refers to infants who receive breast milk and certain fluids (water and water-receive breast milk and certain fluids (water and water- based drinks, fruit juice, ritual fluids, oral rehydration based drinks, fruit juice, ritual fluids, oral rehydration solutions, drops, vitamins, minerals and medicines), but solutions, drops, vitamins, minerals and medicines), but do not receive anything else (in particular, non-human do not receive anything else (in particular, non-human milk and food-based fluids). The table shows exclusive milk and food-based fluids). The table shows exclusive breastfeeding of infants during the first six months of breastfeeding of infants during the first six months of life, as well as continued breastfeeding of children at life, as well as continued breastfeeding of children at 12–15 and 20–23 months of age. 12–15 and 20–23 months of age. Approximately 14 percent of children aged less than six Approximately 14 percent of children aged less than six months are exclusively breastfed. This is a low level of months are exclusively breastfed. This is a low level of exclusive breastfeeding compared to WHO/UNICEF exclusive breastfeeding compared to WHO/UNICEF recommendations. By age 12–15 months, 18 percent recommendations. By age 12–15 months, 18 percent of children are still being breastfed; and by age 20–23 of children are still being breastfed; and by age 20–23 months, 15 percent are still breastfed. Boys are more likely months, 15 percent are still breastfed. Boys are more likely to be breastfed for longer than girls; the rate of exclusive to be breastfed for longer than girls; the rate of exclusive breastfeeding of boys and girls 0–5 months old is almost breastfeeding of boys and girls 0–5 months old is almost the same, but at the age of two, 21 percent of boys and 9 the same, but at the age of two, 21 percent of boys and 9 percent of girls are still breastfed. Four out of ten children percent of girls are still breastfed. Four out of ten children in Serbia are predominantly breastfed (39 percent) within in Serbia are predominantly breastfed (39 percent) within the first 5 months, with high regional differences. the first 5 months, with high regional differences. Figure NU.3 shows the detailed pattern of breastfeeding Figure NU.3 shows the detailed pattern of breastfeeding by the child’s age in months. Even at the earliest ages, by the child’s age in months. Even at the earliest ages, the majority of children are receiving liquids or foods the majority of children are receiving liquids or foods other than breast milk. By the end of the fifth month, other than breast milk. By the end of the fifth month, the percentage of children exclusively breastfed is the percentage of children exclusively breastfed is below 4 percent. Only about 6 percent of children are below 4 percent. Only about 6 percent of children are receiving breast milk at the end of the second year. receiving breast milk at the end of the second year. Table NU.4 shows the median duration of breastfeeding Table NU.4 shows the median duration of breastfeeding by selected background characteristics. Among children by selected background characteristics. Among children under the age of 3, the median duration is 9 months for under the age of 3, the median duration is 9 months for any breastfeeding, 1 month for exclusive breastfeeding, any breastfeeding, 1 month for exclusive breastfeeding, and 2 months for predominant breastfeeding. The median and 2 months for predominant breastfeeding. The median duration of any breastfeeding is the longest in Belgrade (10 duration of any breastfeeding is the longest in Belgrade (10 months) while Vojvodina has the longest median duration months) while Vojvodina has the longest median duration of predominant breastfeeding (3 months).of predominant breastfeeding (3 months). Figure NU.3: Percent distribution of children under age 2 by feeding pattern by age group, Serbia, 2010 MONITORING THE SITUATION OF CHILDREN AND WOMEN 59 Table NU.4: Duration of breastfeeding, Serbia, 2010 Median duration of any breastfeeding, exclusive breastfeeding, and predominant breastfeeding among children age 0–35 months   Median duration (in months) of Number of children age 0–35 monthsAny breastfeeding1 Exclusive breastfeeding Predominant breastfeeding Sex  Male 7.9 .4 1.1 1015 Female 6.9 .5 .7 953 Region  Belgrade 10.3 .5 .5 359 Vojvodina 5.8 .4 2.8 574 Sumadija and Western Serbia 5.6 .5 1.5 525 Southern and Eastern Serbia 6.9 .5 1.3 510 Area  Urban 7.5 .5 .7 1047 Rural 7.5 .5 .7 921 Mother’s education  Primary 8.3 .4 2.3 296 Secondary 7.1 .5 .6 1116 Higher 7.6 .5 1.5 533 Wealth index quintile  Poorest 7.8 .4 .7 394 Second 4.8 .7 1.3 344 Middle 9.0 .4 3.9 334 Fourth 6.2 .4 .6 388 Richest 8.9 .5 .7 507 Median 7.5 .5 .7 1968 Mean for all children (0–35 months) 8.8 .7 2.4 1968 1 MICS indicator 2.10 The adequacy of infant feeding in children under 24 The adequacy of infant feeding in children under 24 months is shown in Table NU.5. Different criteria months is shown in Table NU.5. Different criteria of adequate feeding are used depending on the age of adequate feeding are used depending on the age of the child. For infants aged 0–5 months, exclusive of the child. For infants aged 0–5 months, exclusive breastfeeding is considered as adequate feeding, breastfeeding is considered as adequate feeding, while infants aged 6–23 months are considered to be while infants aged 6–23 months are considered to be adequately fed if they are receiving breast-milk and adequately fed if they are receiving breast-milk and solid, semi-solid or soft food. Based on these feeding solid, semi-solid or soft food. Based on these feeding patterns, only 19 percent of children in Serbia aged patterns, only 19 percent of children in Serbia aged 0–23 months are being adequately fed. The prevalence 0–23 months are being adequately fed. The prevalence of adequate feeding is higher among boys (22 percent) of adequate feeding is higher among boys (22 percent) than among girls (16 percent). Adequate feeding among than among girls (16 percent). Adequate feeding among all infants aged 0–5 month’s drops to 14 percent. all infants aged 0–5 month’s drops to 14 percent. MULTIPLE INDICATOR CLUSTER SURVEY 201060 Table NU.5: Age-appropriate breastfeeding, Serbia, 2010 Percentage of children age 0–23 months who were appropriately breastfed during the previous day   Children age 0–5 months Children age 6–23 months Children age 0–23 months Percent exclusively breastfed1 Number of children Percent currently breastfeeding and receiving solid, semi-solid or soft foods Number of children Percent appropriately breastfed2 Number of children Sex  Male 14.0 121 24.3 487 22.3 608 Female 13.4 150 17.3 461 16.4 611 Region  Belgrade (15.8) 56 20.7 144 19.3 200 Vojvodina 13.3 78 22.6 287 20.6 365 Sumadija and Western Serbia 12.4 67 20.4 259 18.8 326 Southern and Eastern Serbia 13.5 69 19.8 258 18.4 328 Area  Urban 16.1 138 22.7 479 21.3 618 Rural 11.1 133 19.1 469 17.3 602 Mother’s education  Primary (4.9) 45 21.0 140 17.1 185 Secondary 15.2 128 19.3 557 18.5 685 Higher 15.0 91 24.0 240 21.6 331 Wealth index quintile  Poorest 10.9 67 22.5 194 19.5 261 Second (11.9) 57 14.5 158 13.8 215 Middle (26.2) 28 20.9 171 21.6 199 Fourth (2.8) 45 25.5 191 21.1 237 Richest 19.5 74 20.2 234 20.1 308 Total 13.7 271 20.9 948 19.3 1220 1 MICS indicator 2.6 2 MICS indicator 2.14 ( ) Figures that are based on 25–49 unweighted cases MONITORING THE SITUATION OF CHILDREN AND WOMEN 61 Adequate complementary feeding of children from six Adequate complementary feeding of children from six months to two years of age is particularly important for months to two years of age is particularly important for growth and development and the prevention of under-growth and development and the prevention of under- nutrition. Continued breastfeeding beyond six months nutrition. Continued breastfeeding beyond six months should be accompanied by consumption of nutritionally should be accompanied by consumption of nutritionally adequate, safe, and appropriate complementary foods adequate, safe, and appropriate complementary foods that help to meet nutritional requirements when breast-that help to meet nutritional requirements when breast- Table NU.6: Introduction of solid, semi-solid or soft foods, Serbia, 2010 Percentage of infants age 6–8 months who received solid, semi-solid or soft foods during the previous day   Currently breastfeeding Currently not breastfeeding All Percent receiving solid, semi-solid or soft foods Number of children age 6–8 months Percent receiving solid, semi-solid or soft foods Number of children age 6–8 months Percent receiving solid, semi-solid or soft foods1 Number of children age 6–8 months Sex  Male (91.4) 42 (92.9) 31 92.1 73 Female (65.4) 34 (85.2) 49 77.1 82 Area  Urban (89.1) 37 (86.4) 41 87.7 78 Rural (71.2) 39 (90.1) 39 80.6 78 Total 79.8 76 88.2 80 84.1 156 1 MICS indicator 2.12 ( ) Figures that are based on 25–49 unweighted cases milk alone is no longer sufficient. For breastfed children, milk alone is no longer sufficient. For breastfed children, this requires two or more meals of solid, semi-solid this requires two or more meals of solid, semi-solid or soft foods, if they are six to eight months old; and or soft foods, if they are six to eight months old; and three or more meals if they are 9–23 months of age. For three or more meals if they are 9–23 months of age. For children 6–23 months and older who are not breastfed, children 6–23 months and older who are not breastfed, four or more meals of solid, semi-solid or soft foods or four or more meals of solid, semi-solid or soft foods or milk feeds are needed.milk feeds are needed. Overall, 84 percent of infants aged 6–8 months received Overall, 84 percent of infants aged 6–8 months received solid, semi-solid, or soft foods (Table NU.6). Among solid, semi-solid, or soft foods (Table NU.6). Among currently breastfeeding infants this proportion is 80 currently breastfeeding infants this proportion is 80 percent while it is 94 percent among infants currently percent while it is 94 percent among infants currently not breastfeeding. not breastfeeding. Table NU.7 presents the proportion of children aged Table NU.7 presents the proportion of children aged 6–23 months who received semi-solid or soft foods 6–23 months who received semi-solid or soft foods the minimum number of times or more during the the minimum number of times or more during the previous day, according to breastfeeding status (see previous day, according to breastfeeding status (see the note in Table NU.7 for a definition of minimum the note in Table NU.7 for a definition of minimum number of times for different age groups). Overall, the number of times for different age groups). Overall, the majority of children aged 6–23 months (84 percent) majority of children aged 6–23 months (84 percent) were receiving solid, semi-solid and soft foods the were receiving solid, semi-solid and soft foods the minimum number of times. Some 88 percent of minimum number of times. Some 88 percent of children in Southern and Eastern Serbia receive children in Southern and Eastern Serbia receive minimum meal frequency compared with 78 percent minimum meal frequency compared with 78 percent of children from Belgrade.of children from Belgrade. MULTIPLE INDICATOR CLUSTER SURVEY 201062 Table NU.7: Minimum meal frequency, Serbia, 2010 Percentage of children age 6–23 months who received solid, semi-solid, or soft foods (and milk feeds for non-breastfeeding children) the minimum number of times or more during the previous day, according to breastfeeding status     Currently breastfeeding Currently not breastfeeding All Percent receiving solid, semi-solid and soft foods the minimum number of times Number of children age 6–23 months Percent receiving at least 2 milk feeds1 Percent receiving solid, semi-solid and soft foods or milk feeds 4 times or more Number of children age 6–23 months Percent with minimum meal frequency2 Number of children age 6–23 months Sex  Male 65.4 137 89.6 91.8 351 84.4 487 Female 55.6 103 88.6 92.5 358 84.3 461 Age  6–8 months 66.9 76 96.2 92.2 80 79.9 156 9–11 months 41.9 57 94.3 93.2 74 70.8 132 12–17 months 68.4 63 89.4 92.1 303 88.0 366 18–23 months (66.5) 43 85.0 91.8 252 88.2 295 Region  Belgrade (46.2) 41 85.4 90.5 103 77.9 144 Vojvodina 68.6 70 87.3 94.1 217 87.9 287 Sumadija and Western Serbia 52.6 65 90.1 90.0 194 80.6 259 Southern and Eastern Serbia (71.8) 63 92.1 92.9 196 87.8 258 Area  Urban 59.9 132 90.6 93.1 348 84.0 479 Rural 62.9 108 87.8 91.2 361 84.7 469 Mother’s education  Primary (67.2) 35 91.3 90.6 105 84.8 140 Secondary 60.6 129 87.7 92.5 428 85.1 557 Higher 62.7 71 91.3 92.2 169 83.5 240 Wealth index quintile  Poorest 58.1 57 90.3 89.1 137 80.0 194 Second (76.4) 29 85.5 95.0 129 91.5 158 Middle (47.7) 43 90.0 88.8 128 78.6 171 Fourth (63.7) 52 89.7 92.8 140 85.0 191 Richest 64.4 59 89.8 94.3 175 86.8 234 Total 61.2 239 89.1 92.1 709 84.3 948 1 MICS indicator 2.15 2 MICS indicator 2.13 ( ) Figures that are based on 25–49 unweighted cases Among currently breastfeeding children age 6–8 months, minimum meal frequency is defined as children who also received solid, semi-solid or soft foods 2 times or more. Among currently breastfeeding children age 9–23 months, receipt of solid, semi-solid or soft foods at least 3 times constitutes minimum meal frequency. For non-breastfeeding children age 6–23 months, minimum meal frequency is defined as children receiving solid, semi-solid or soft foods, and milk feeds, at least 4 times during the previous day. MONITORING THE SITUATION OF CHILDREN AND WOMEN 63 Among currently breastfeeding children aged 6–23 Among currently breastfeeding children aged 6–23 months, more than half of them (61 percent) were months, more than half of them (61 percent) were receiving solid, semi-solid and soft foods the minimum receiving solid, semi-solid and soft foods the minimum number of times and this proportion was higher among number of times and this proportion was higher among males (65 percent) than among females (56 percent). males (65 percent) than among females (56 percent). Among non-breastfeeding children, 92 percent were Among non-breastfeeding children, 92 percent were receiving solid, semi-solid and soft foods or milk feeds receiving solid, semi-solid and soft foods or milk feeds 4 times or more. 4 times or more. Table NU.8 shows that bottle-feeding is highly prevalent Table NU.8 shows that bottle-feeding is highly prevalent in Serbia as 85 percent of children between 0–23 months in Serbia as 85 percent of children between 0–23 months of age are fed using a bottle with a nipple.of age are fed using a bottle with a nipple. Table NU.8: Bottle feeding, Serbia, 2010 Percentage of children age 0–23 months who were fed with a bottle with a nipple during the previous day   Percentage of children age 0–23 months fed with a bottle with a nipple1 Number of children age 0–23 months Sex  Male 84.7 608 Female 84.5 611 Age  0–5 months 75.7 271 6–11 months 92.0 287 12–23 months 85.1 661 Region  Belgrade 80.4 200 Vojvodina 84.0 365 Sumadija and Western Serbia 81.1 326 Southern and Eastern Serbia 91.4 328 Area  Urban 84.0 618 Rural 85.3 602 Mother’s education  Primary 80.1 185 Secondary 88.1 685 Higher 82.5 331 Wealth index quintile  Poorest 79.5 261 Second 88.2 215 Middle 86.2 199 Fourth 88.5 237 Richest 82.4 308 Total 84.6 1220 1 MICS indicator 2.11 MULTIPLE INDICATOR CLUSTER SURVEY 201064 Breastfeeding and Infant and Young ChildBreastfeeding and Infant and Young Child Feeding in Roma Settlements Feeding in Roma Settlements Table NU.2R: Initial breastfeeding, Roma Settlements, 2010 Percentage of last-born children in the 2 years preceding the survey who were ever breastfed, percentage who were breastfed within one hour of birth and within one day of birth, and percentage who received a prelacteal feed Percentage who were ever breastfed1 Percentage who were first breastfed: Percentage who received a prelacteal feed Number of last-born children in the two years preceding the surveyWithin one hour of birth 2 Within one day of birth Area  Urban 93.9 9.8 65.5 30.7 294 Rural 91.7 10.2 80.0 24.9 146 Months since birth  0–5 months 92.0 6.6 73.0 29.4 93 6–11months 97.0 11.5 69.0 34.6 93 12–23 months 92.2 10.6 69.7 26.4 253 Assistance at delivery  Skilled attendant 93.3 9.9 70.4 28.9 438 Traditional birth attendant (*) (*) (*) (*) 1 Place of delivery  Public sector health facility 93.3 9.8 70.4 29.0 437 Home (*) (*) (*) (*) 2 Mother’s education  None 93.8 12.5 59.7 20.6 89 Primary 94.9 9.8 75.6 30.1 291 Secondary 83.8 7.2 59.6 35.2 59 Wealth index quintile  Poorest 90.9 6.7 67.3 20.2 106 Second 94.9 9.1 73.9 24.6 99 Middle 95.6 20.9 76.8 37.9 80 Fourth 92.5 5.2 68.6 25.4 81 Richest 92.3 9.1 64.6 40.3 75 Total 93.2 10.0 70.3 28.8 440 1 MICS indicator 2.4 2 MICS indicator 2.5 (*) Figures that are based on less than 25 unweighted cases Table NU.2R provides the proportion of children from Table NU.2R provides the proportion of children from Roma settlements born in the last two years who were ever Roma settlements born in the last two years who were ever breastfed, those who were first breastfed within one hour, breastfed, those who were first breastfed within one hour, and within one day of birth, and those who received a pre-and within one day of birth, and those who received a pre- lacteal feed. Although a very important step in management lacteal feed. Although a very important step in management of lactation and establishment of a physical and emotional of lactation and establishment of a physical and emotional relationship between the baby and the mother, only 10 relationship between the baby and the mother, only 10 percent of babies are breastfed for the first time within one percent of babies are breastfed for the first time within one hour of birth, while 70 percent of children born to mothers hour of birth, while 70 percent of children born to mothers from Roma settlements start breastfeeding within one day from Roma settlements start breastfeeding within one day of birth. Less than a third (29 percent) of children received of birth. Less than a third (29 percent) of children received a pre-lacteal feed within the first 3 days of birth. Children a pre-lacteal feed within the first 3 days of birth. Children MULTIPLE INDICATOR CLUSTER SURVEY 201064 MONITORING THE SITUATION OF CHILDREN AND WOMEN 65 Table NU.3R: Breastfeeding, Roma Settlements, 2010 Percentage of living children according to breastfeeding status at selected age groups Children age 0–5 months Children age 12–15 months Children age 20–23 months Percent exclusively breastfed1 Percent predominantly breastfed2 Number of children Percent breastfed (Continued breastfeeding at 1 year)3 Number of children Percent breastfed (Continued breastfeeding at 2 years)4 Number of children Sex  Male 13.5 52.0 74 47.7 46 40.6 64 Female (3.7) (52.5) 60 57.4 85 (30.7) 39 Area  Urban 10.9 64.2 73 55.2 80 38.7 82 Rural 7.0 37.8 61 (52.1) 50 (29.5) 21 Mother’s education  None (6.5) (51.6) 28 (48.1) 32 (50.4) 26 Primary 12.7 53.0 83 55.5 85 37.3 66 Secondary (*) (*) 24 (*) 14 (*) 12 Wealth index quintile  Poorest (8.4) (48.5) 31 (59.4) 35 (43.9) 26 Second (11.3) (52.8) 23 (59.8) 34 (*) 12 Middle (*) (*) 34 (*) 21 (*) 15 Fourth (*) (*) 15 (35.9) 25 (*) 35 Richest (*) (*) 31 (*) 17 (*) 16 Total 9.1 52.2 134 54.0 131 36.9 104 1 MICS indicator 2.6 2 MICS indicator 2.9 3 MICS indicator 2.7 4 MICS indicator 2.8 ( ) Figures that are based on 25–49 unweighted cases (*) Figures that are based on less than 25 unweighted cases in the poorest quintile and children whose mothers have no in the poorest quintile and children whose mothers have no education mostly receive a pre-lacteal feed only half as often education mostly receive a pre-lacteal feed only half as often as children in the richest quintile or in households where as children in the richest quintile or in households where the mother has a secondary education. the mother has a secondary education. In Table NU.3R, breastfeeding status is based on the reports In Table NU.3R, breastfeeding status is based on the reports of mothers/caretakers of children’s consumption of food of mothers/caretakers of children’s consumption of food and fluids in the 24 hours prior to the interview. and fluids in the 24 hours prior to the interview. Exclusively Exclusively breastfedbreastfed refers to infants who received only breast milk (and refers to infants who received only breast milk (and vitamins, mineral supplements, or medicine). vitamins, mineral supplements, or medicine). Predominantly Predominantly breastfedbreastfed refers to infants who received breast milk and refers to infants who received breast milk and certain fluids (water and water-based drinks, fruit juice, certain fluids (water and water-based drinks, fruit juice, ritual fluids, oral rehydration solutions, drops, vitamins, ritual fluids, oral rehydration solutions, drops, vitamins, minerals and medicines), but do not receive anything else minerals and medicines), but do not receive anything else (in particular, non-human milk and food-based fluids). Table (in particular, non-human milk and food-based fluids). Table NU.3R shows rates of exclusive breastfeeding of infants NU.3R shows rates of exclusive breastfeeding of infants during the first six months of life, as well as continued during the first six months of life, as well as continued breastfeeding of children at 12–15 and 20–23 months of age.breastfeeding of children at 12–15 and 20–23 months of age. MONITORING THE SITUATION OF CHILDREN AND WOMEN 65 Figure NU.2R: Percentage of mothers who started breastfeeding within one hour and within one day of birth, Roma settlements, 2010 MULTIPLE INDICATOR CLUSTER SURVEY 201066 Approximately 9 percent of children from Roma settlements Approximately 9 percent of children from Roma settlements aged less than six months are exclusively breastfed, a low aged less than six months are exclusively breastfed, a low level compared to WHO/UNICEF recommendations. level compared to WHO/UNICEF recommendations. By age 12–15 months, 54 percent of children are still By age 12–15 months, 54 percent of children are still being breastfed and by age 20–23 months, 37 percent being breastfed and by age 20–23 months, 37 percent are still breastfed. Half of children aged 0–5 months are still breastfed. Half of children aged 0–5 months are predominantly breastfed (52 percent). are predominantly breastfed (52 percent). Figure NU.3R shows the detailed pattern of breastfeeding Figure NU.3R shows the detailed pattern of breastfeeding by the child’s age in months. Even at the earliest ages, the by the child’s age in months. Even at the earliest ages, the majority of children are receiving liquids or foods other than majority of children are receiving liquids or foods other than breast milk. By the end of the fifth month, the percentage of breast milk. By the end of the fifth month, the percentage of children exclusively breastfed is around 3 percent. However, children exclusively breastfed is around 3 percent. However, one third of children from Roma settlements are still one third of children from Roma settlements are still receiving breast milk at the end of the second year. receiving breast milk at the end of the second year. Table NU.4R shows the median duration of breastfeeding Table NU.4R shows the median duration of breastfeeding by selected background characteristics. Among children by selected background characteristics. Among children under 3, the median duration for any breastfeeding is 15 under 3, the median duration for any breastfeeding is 15 months, half a month for exclusive breastfeeding, and months, half a month for exclusive breastfeeding, and 4 months for predominant breastfeeding. The median 4 months for predominant breastfeeding. The median duration of any breastfeeding is longest among the second duration of any breastfeeding is longest among the second wealth quintile (19 months) and among mothers with no wealth quintile (19 months) and among mothers with no education (26 months).education (26 months). Table NU.4R: Duration of breastfeeding, Roma Settlements, 2010 Median duration of any breastfeeding, exclusive breastfeeding, and predominant breastfeeding among children age 0–35 months   Median duration (in months) of Number of children age 0–35 months Any breastfeeding1 Exclusive breastfeeding Predominant breastfeeding Sex  Male 13.1 .5 2.8 476 Female 14.9 .4 2.7 476 Area  Urban 14.3 .5 3.6 637 Rural 14.3 .4 1.6 315 Mother’s education  None 25.7 .5 2.7 188 Primary 14.1 .5 2.8 648 Secondary 12.1 . 2.6 111 Wealth index quintile  Poorest 15.7 .5 2.4 228 Second 19.4 .4 2.7 219 Middle 15.3 .4 2.2 180 Fourth 7.9 .6 2.9 163 Richest 9.2 .5 5.2 162 Median 14.3 .4 2.7 952 Mean for all children (0–35 months) 14.9 .6 3.8 952 1 MICS indicator 2.10 MULTIPLE INDICATOR CLUSTER SURVEY 201066 Figure NU.3R: Percent distribution of children under age 2 by feeding pattern by age group, Roma settlements, 2010 MONITORING THE SITUATION OF CHILDREN AND WOMEN 67 Table NU.5R: Age-appropriate breastfeeding, Roma Settlements, 2010 Percentage of children age 0–23 months who were appropriately breastfed during the previous day   Children age 0–5 months Children age 6–23 months Children age 0–23 months Percent exclusively breastfed1 Number of children Percent currently breastfeeding and receiving solid, semi- solid or soft foods Number of children Percent appropriately breastfed2 Number of children Sex  Male 13.5 74 39.4 232 33.2 307 Female 3.7 60 42.0 225 34.0 285 Area  Urban 10.9 73 40.5 317 34.9 391 Rural 7.0 61 41.2 140 30.9 201 Mother’s education  None (6.5) 28 47.5 96 38.3 123 Primary 12.7 83 40.8 307 34.8 390 Secondary (*) 24 (26.7) 53 18.4 77 Wealth index quintile  Poorest (8.4) 31 47.3 116 39.0 147 Second (11.3) 23 55.0 107 47.3 130 Middle (*) 34 37.7 72 26.7 106 Fourth (*) 15 33.7 93 30.8 108 Richest (*) 31 20.0 69 17.9 100 Total 9.1 134 40.7 457 33.5 592 1 MICS indicator 2.6 2 MICS indicator 2.14 ( ) Figures that are based on 25–49 unweighted cases (*) Figures that are based on less than 25 unweighted cases The adequacy of infant feeding in children under-24 The adequacy of infant feeding in children under-24 months is provided in Table NU.5R. Different criteria months is provided in Table NU.5R. Different criteria of adequate feeding are used depending on the age of adequate feeding are used depending on the age of the child. For infants aged 0–5 months, exclusive of the child. For infants aged 0–5 months, exclusive breastfeeding is considered as adequate feeding, breastfeeding is considered as adequate feeding, while infants aged 6–23 months are considered to be while infants aged 6–23 months are considered to be adequately fed if they are receiving breast-milk and adequately fed if they are receiving breast-milk and solid, semi-solid or soft food. Based on these criteria, solid, semi-solid or soft food. Based on these criteria, 41 percent of children aged 6–23 months are being 41 percent of children aged 6–23 months are being adequately fed. adequately fed. Adequate complementary feeding of children from six Adequate complementary feeding of children from six months to two years of age is particularly important for months to two years of age is particularly important for growth and development and the prevention of under-growth and development and the prevention of under- nutrition. Continued breastfeeding beyond six months nutrition. Continued breastfeeding beyond six months should be accompanied by consumption of nutritionally should be accompanied by consumption of nutritionally adequate, safe and appropriate complementary foods adequate, safe and appropriate complementary foods that help meet nutritional requirements when breast-that help meet nutritional requirements when breast- milk alone is no longer sufficient. This requires that for milk alone is no longer sufficient. This requires that for breastfed children, two or more meals of solid, semi-solid breastfed children, two or more meals of solid, semi-solid or soft foods are needed if they are six to eight months or soft foods are needed if they are six to eight months old, and three or more meals if they are 9–23 months of old, and three or more meals if they are 9–23 months of age. For children aged 6–23 months and older who are not age. For children aged 6–23 months and older who are not breastfed, four or more meals of solid, semi-solid or soft breastfed, four or more meals of solid, semi-solid or soft foods or milk feeds are needed.foods or milk feeds are needed. Overall, 65 percent of infants aged 6–8 months received Overall, 65 percent of infants aged 6–8 months received solid, semi-solid, or soft foods (Table NU.6R). solid, semi-solid, or soft foods (Table NU.6R). MONITORING THE SITUATION OF CHILDREN AND WOMEN 67 MULTIPLE INDICATOR CLUSTER SURVEY 201068 Table NU.6R: Introduction of solid, semi-solid or soft foods, Roma Settlements, 2010 Percentage of infants age 6–8 months who received solid, semi-solid or soft foods during the previous day   Currently breastfeeding Currently not breastfeeding All Percent receiving solid, semi-solid or soft foods Number of children age 6–8 months Percent receiving solid, semi-solid or soft foods Number of children age 6–8 months Percent receiving solid, semi-solid or soft foods1 Number of children age 6–8 months Sex  Male (*) 25 (*) 6 (48.4) 30 Female (*) 17 (*) 11 (84.1) 27 Area  Urban (50.3) 29 (*) 11 (63.5) 40 Rural (*) 12 (*) 5 (*) 17 Total (53.4) 41 (*) 17 65.3 58 1 MICS indicator 2.12 ( ) Figures that are based on 25–49 unweighted cases (*) Figures that are based on less than 25 unweighted cases Table NU.7R: Minimum meal frequency, Roma Settlements, 2010 Percentage of children age 6–23 months who received solid, semi-solid, or soft foods (and milk feeds for non-breastfeeding children) the minimum number of times or more during the previous day, according to breastfeeding status Currently breastfeeding Currently not breastfeeding All Percent receiving solid, semi-solid and soft foods the minimum number of times Number of children age 6–23 months Percent receiving at least 2 milk feeds1 Percent receiving solid, semi-solid and soft foods or milk feeds 4 times or more Number of children age 6–23 months Percent with minimum meal frequency2 Number of children age 6–23 months Sex  Male 48.1 117 58.8 85.8 116 66.9 232 Female 69.6 109 60.8 83.9 116 77.0 225 Age  6–8 months (44.3) 41 (*) (*) 17 57.3 58 9–11 months (37.2) 39 (*) (*) 24 60.8 63 12–17 months 66.5 86 64.3 87.8 88 77.2 174 18–23 months 71.0 60 46.8 78.2 103 75.6 163 Area  Urban 57.8 156 61.2 84.1 161 71.2 317 Rural 60.2 70 56.4 86.7 70 73.4 140 Mother’s education  None 58.5 56 (60.7) (82.4) 39 68.4 96 Primary 58.0 149 60.1 83.2 158 71.0 307 Secondary (*) 20 (57.3) (95.5) 34 (82.3) 53 Wealth index quintile  Poorest 56.9 62 51.3 76.8 54 66.2 116 Second 58.7 69 (59.9) (84.2) 39 67.9 107 Middle (66.5) 37 (60.0) (82.3) 36 74.3 72 Fourth (65.8) 37 56.8 85.7 56 77.7 93 Richest (*) 22 (72.6) (95.6) 47 77.1 69 Total 58.5 226 59.8 84.9 231 71.9 457 1 MICS indicator 2.15 2 MICS indicator 2.13 ( ) Figures that are based on 25–49 unweighted cases (*) Figures that are based on less than 25 unweighted cases Among currently breastfeeding children age 6–8 months, minimum meal frequency is defined as children who also received solid, semi-solid or soft foods 2 times or more. Among currently breastfeeding children age 9–23 months, receipt of solid, semi-solid or soft foods at least 3 times constitutes minimum meal frequency. For non-breastfeeding children age 6–23 months, minimum meal frequency is defined as children receiving solid, semi- solid or soft foods, and milk feeds, at least 4 times during the previous day. MULTIPLE INDICATOR CLUSTER SURVEY 201068 MONITORING THE SITUATION OF CHILDREN AND WOMEN 69 Table NU.7R presents the proportion of children aged Table NU.7R presents the proportion of children aged 6–23 months who received semi-solid or soft foods 6–23 months who received semi-solid or soft foods the minimum number of times or more during the the minimum number of times or more during the previous day according to breastfeeding status (see previous day according to breastfeeding status (see the note in Table NU.7R for a definition of minimum the note in Table NU.7R for a definition of minimum number of times for different age groups). Overall, number of times for different age groups). Overall, about two thirds of the children aged 6–23 months about two thirds of the children aged 6–23 months (72 percent) were receiving solid, semi-solid and soft (72 percent) were receiving solid, semi-solid and soft foods the minimum number of times. foods the minimum number of times. Among currently breastfeeding children aged Among currently breastfeeding children aged 6–23 months, more than half of them (59 percent) 6–23 months, more than half of them (59 percent) were receiving solid, semi-solid and soft foods were receiving solid, semi-solid and soft foods the minimum number of times. There is a high the minimum number of times. There is a high difference between male and female children, as difference between male and female children, as there are 48 percent of boys who are currently there are 48 percent of boys who are currently breastfed and are receiving meals the minimum breastfed and are receiving meals the minimum number of times in comparison with 70 percent number of times in comparison with 70 percent of girls. Among non-breastfeeding children, 85 of girls. Among non-breastfeeding children, 85 percent of the children were receiving solid, semi-percent of the children were receiving solid, semi- solid and soft foods or milk feeds 4 times or more. solid and soft foods or milk feeds 4 times or more. Some 60 percent of children who are not breastfed Some 60 percent of children who are not breastfed are receiving at least two milk feeds per day.are receiving at least two milk feeds per day. Table NU.8R shows that bottle-feeding is highly Table NU.8R shows that bottle-feeding is highly prevalent in Roma Settlements in Serbia as 82 percent prevalent in Roma Settlements in Serbia as 82 percent of children aged between 0–23 months are fed using of children aged between 0–23 months are fed using a bottle with a nipple.a bottle with a nipple. Table NU.8R: Bottle feeding, Roma Settlements, 2010 Percentage of children age 0–23 months who were fed with a bottle with a nipple during the previous day Percentage of children age 0–23 months fed with a bottle with a nipple1 Number of children age 0–23 months Sex  Male 81.8 307 Female 81.8 285 Age  0–5 months 83.2 134 6–11 months 89.9 121 12–23 months 78.3 337 Area  Urban 79.8 391 Rural 85.6 201 Mother’s education  None 86.4 123 Primary 81.2 390 Secondary 76.9 77 Wealth index quintile  Poorest 79.6 147 Second 78.5 130 Middle 89.0 106 Fourth 82.1 108 Richest 81.2 100 Total 81.8 592 1 MICS indicator 2.11 MONITORING THE SITUATION OF CHILDREN AND WOMEN 69 MULTIPLE INDICATOR CLUSTER SURVEY 201070 Low Birth WeightLow Birth Weight Weight at birth is a good indicator not only of a mother’s Weight at birth is a good indicator not only of a mother’s health and nutritional status but also the newborn’s health and nutritional status but also the newborn’s chances for survival, growth, long-term health and chances for survival, growth, long-term health and psychosocial development. Low birth weight (less than psychosocial development. Low birth weight (less than 2500 grams) carries a range of grave health risks for 2500 grams) carries a range of grave health risks for children. Babies who were undernourished in the womb children. Babies who were undernourished in the womb face a greatly increased risk of dying during their early face a greatly increased risk of dying during their early months and years. Those who survive have impaired months and years. Those who survive have impaired immune function and increased risk of disease; they are immune function and increased risk of disease; they are likely to remain undernourished, with reduced muscle likely to remain undernourished, with reduced muscle strength, throughout their lives, and suffer a higher strength, throughout their lives, and suffer a higher incidence of diabetes and heart disease in later life. incidence of diabetes and heart disease in later life. Children born underweight also tend to have a lowerChildren born underweight also tend to have a lower IQ and cognitive disabilities, affecting their performance IQ and cognitive disabilities, affecting their performance in school and their job opportunities as adults. in school and their job opportunities as adults. Low birth weight stems primarily from the mother’s Low birth weight stems primarily from the mother’s poor health and nutrition. At the same time, in poor health and nutrition. At the same time, in the industrialized world, cigarette smoking during the industrialized world, cigarette smoking during pregnancy is the leading cause of low birth weight. In pregnancy is the leading cause of low birth weight. In developed and developing countries alike, teenagers developed and developing countries alike, teenagers who give birth when their own bodies have yet to finish who give birth when their own bodies have yet to finish growing run the risk of bearing underweight babies. growing run the risk of bearing underweight babies. The percentage of births weighing below 2500 grams The percentage of births weighing below 2500 grams is estimated from two items in the questionnaire: the is estimated from two items in the questionnaire: the mother’s assessment of the child’s size at birth (i.e., very mother’s assessment of the child’s size at birth (i.e., very small, smaller than average, average, larger than average, small, smaller than average, average, larger than average, very large) and the mother’s recall of the child’s weight very large) and the mother’s recall of the child’s weight or the weight as recorded on a health card if the child or the weight as recorded on a health card if the child was weighed at birthwas weighed at birth1111. Overall, almost all children (99.6 percent of births) in Overall, almost all children (99.6 percent of births) in Serbia were weighed at birth and approximately 5 percent Serbia were weighed at birth and approximately 5 percent of infants are estimated to weigh less than 2500 grams of infants are estimated to weigh less than 2500 grams at birth (Table NU.9). There is no variation by region at birth (Table NU.9). There is no variation by region (Figure NU.4). The percentage of low birth weight varies (Figure NU.4). The percentage of low birth weight varies by wealth quintile. There are 8 percent of infants with low by wealth quintile. There are 8 percent of infants with low birth weight among the children in the poorest quintile birth weight among the children in the poorest quintile compared with 4 percent among the richest quintile.compared with 4 percent among the richest quintile. Table NU.9: Low birth weight infants, Serbia, 2010 Percentage of last-born children in the 2 years preceding the survey that are estimated to have weighed below 2500 grams at birth and percentage of live births weighted at birth   Percent of live births: Number of live births in the last 2 years Below 2500 grams1 Weighted at birth2 Region  Belgrade 5.7 99.6 91 Vojvodina 4.2 100.0 163 Sumadija and Western Serbia 5.0 99.3 144 Southern and Eastern Serbia 4.9 99.5 146 Area  Urban 4.5 99.8 281 Rural 5.2 99.4 262 Mother’s education  Primary 5.7 99.5 79 Secondary 5.1 99.8 307 Higher 3.9 99.7 148 Wealth index quintile  Poorest 8.3 98.6 112 Second 4.0 100.0 97 Middle 3.6 100.0 87 Fourth 4.7 100.0 106 Richest 3.5 99.5 141 Total 4.8 99.6 543 1 MICS indicator 2.18 2 MICS indicator 2.19 11 For a detailed description of the methodology, see Boerma, J. T., Weinstein, K. I., Rutstein, S. O., and Sommerfelt, A. E., 1996. Data on Birth Weight in Developing Countries: Can Surveys Help? Bulletin of the World Health Organization, 74(2), 209–16. Figure NU.4: Percentage of infants weighing less than 2500 grams at birth by wealth index, Serbia, 2010 MONITORING THE SITUATION OF CHILDREN AND WOMEN 71 Low Birth Weight in Roma Settlements Low Birth Weight in Roma Settlements Table NU.9R: Low birth weight infants, Roma Settlements, 2010 Percentage of last-born children in the 2 years preceding the survey that are estimated to have weighed below 2500 grams at birth and percentage of live births weighted at birth   Percent of live births: Number of live births in the last 2 yearsBelow 2500 grams1 Weighted at birth2 Area  Urban 10.4 95.5 294 Rural 9.8 97.5 146 Mother’s education  None 11.3 91.3 89 Primary 10.2 96.9 291 Secondary 8.2 100.0 59 Wealth index quintile  Poorest 11.8 91.5 106 Second 11.0 99.6 99 Middle 10.7 92.6 80 Fourth 7.5 99.6 81 Richest 9.0 98.3 75 Total 10.2 96.2 440 1 MICS indicator 2.18 2 MICS indicator 2.19 Overall, a high percentage of children (96 percent of Overall, a high percentage of children (96 percent of all live births) in Roma settlements in Serbia were all live births) in Roma settlements in Serbia were weighed at birth and approximately 10 percent were weighed at birth and approximately 10 percent were estimated to weigh less than 2500 grams (Table estimated to weigh less than 2500 grams (Table NU.9R). The percentage of low birth weight shows NU.9R). The percentage of low birth weight shows only a small variation by wealth quintile as there are only a small variation by wealth quintile as there are 12 percent of infants with low birth weight among 12 percent of infants with low birth weight among the poorest quintile and 9 percent among the richest. the poorest quintile and 9 percent among the richest. Lower educational attainment of the mother is Lower educational attainment of the mother is correlated with low birth weight of children.correlated with low birth weight of children. MONITORING THE SITUATION OF CHILDREN AND WOMEN 71 Figure NU.4R: Percentage of infants weighing less than 2500 grams at birth by wealth index, Roma settlements, 2010 MULTIPLE INDICATOR CLUSTER SURVEY 201072 VIVI CHILD HEALTH CHILD HEALTH Oral Rehydration TreatmentOral Rehydration Treatment Diarrhoea is the second leading cause of death among Diarrhoea is the second leading cause of death among children under five worldwide. Most diarrhoea-related children under five worldwide. Most diarrhoea-related deaths in children are due to dehydration from loss of deaths in children are due to dehydration from loss of large quantities of water and electrolytes from the body in large quantities of water and electrolytes from the body in liquid stools. Management of diarrhoea — either through liquid stools. Management of diarrhoea — either through oral rehydration salts (ORS) or a recommended home fluid oral rehydration salts (ORS) or a recommended home fluid (RHF) — can prevent many of these deaths. Preventing (RHF) — can prevent many of these deaths. Preventing dehydration and malnutrition by increasing fluid intake dehydration and malnutrition by increasing fluid intake and continuing to feed the child are also important and continuing to feed the child are also important strategies for managing diarrhoea.strategies for managing diarrhoea. The MDGs are to: 1) reduce by one half death due to The MDGs are to: 1) reduce by one half death due to diarrhoea among children under five by 2010 compared diarrhoea among children under five by 2010 compared to 2000 (A World Fit for Children); and 2) reduce by to 2000 (A World Fit for Children); and 2) reduce by two-thirds the mortality rate among children under five two-thirds the mortality rate among children under five by 2015 compared to 1990 (Millennium Development by 2015 compared to 1990 (Millennium Development Goals). In addition, the World Fit for Children calls for a Goals). In addition, the World Fit for Children calls for a reduction in the incidence of diarrhoea by 25 percent.reduction in the incidence of diarrhoea by 25 percent. The indicators are:The indicators are:  Prevalence of diarrhoea Prevalence of diarrhoea  Oral rehydration therapy (ORT) Oral rehydration therapy (ORT)  Home management of diarrhoea Home management of diarrhoea  ORT with continued feeding ORT with continued feeding In the MICS questionnaire, mothers (or caretakers) were In the MICS questionnaire, mothers (or caretakers) were asked to report whether their child had had diarrhoea in asked to report whether their child had had diarrhoea in the two weeks prior to the survey. If so, the mother was the two weeks prior to the survey. If so, the mother was asked a series of questions about what the child had to asked a series of questions about what the child had to drink and eat during the episode and whether this was drink and eat during the episode and whether this was more or less than the child usually ate and drank.more or less than the child usually ate and drank. Overall, about 8 percent of children under-five had had Overall, about 8 percent of children under-five had had diarrhoea in the two weeks preceding the survey (Table diarrhoea in the two weeks preceding the survey (Table CH.1). Diarrhoea prevalence was similar in all regions. CH.1). Diarrhoea prevalence was similar in all regions. The peak of diarrhoea prevalence occurs among children The peak of diarrhoea prevalence occurs among children aged 24–47 months.aged 24–47 months. Table CH.1 also shows the percentage of children receiving Table CH.1 also shows the percentage of children receiving various types of recommended liquids during the episode various types of recommended liquids during the episode of diarrhoea. Since mothers were able to name more than of diarrhoea. Since mothers were able to name more than one type of liquid, the percentages do not necessarily add one type of liquid, the percentages do not necessarily add to 100 percent. About 36 percent received fluids from to 100 percent. About 36 percent received fluids from ORS packets or pre-packaged ORS fluids and 68 percent ORS packets or pre-packaged ORS fluids and 68 percent received recommended homemade fluids. Approximately received recommended homemade fluids. Approximately 73 percent of children with diarrhoea received one or more 73 percent of children with diarrhoea received one or more of the recommended home treatments (i.e., were treated of the recommended home treatments (i.e., were treated with ORS or any recommended homemade fluid). There is with ORS or any recommended homemade fluid). There is a difference in administration of ORS or a recommended a difference in administration of ORS or a recommended homemade fluid between urban (86 percent) and rural homemade fluid between urban (86 percent) and rural areas (61 percent). areas (61 percent). MONITORING THE SITUATION OF CHILDREN AND WOMEN 73 Table CH.1: Oral rehydration solutions and recommended homemade fluids, Serbia, 2010 Percentage of children age 0–59 months with diarrhoea in the last two weeks, and treatment with oral rehydration solutions and recommended homemade fluids Had diarrhoea in last two weeks Number of children age 0–59 months Children with diarrhoea who received: Number of children age 0–59 months with diarrhoea in last two weeks ORS (Fluid from ORS packet or pre-packaged ORS fluid) Recommended homemade fluids ORS or any recommended homemade fluid Boiled rice water Instant or stock cube soup Any recommended homemade fluid Sex Male 8.0 1670 45.5 24.2 67.9 73.6 78.4 134 Female 6.9 1704 25.1 22.6 60.6 62.0 67.8 118 Region  Belgrade 8.7 639 (37.7) (39.3) (79.4) (80.0) (82.8) 56 Vojvodina 9.6 994 25.4 22.9 48.9 54.1 59.9 96 Sumadija and Western Serbia 6.4 905 39.6 14.5 62.5 65.8 71.0 58 Southern and Eastern Serbia 5.2 836 (52.3) (16.4) (82.7) (87.5) (94.7) 43 Area  Urban 6.9 1810 50.3 25.2 76.6 82.0 86.1 124 Rural 8.2 1564 22.1 21.8 52.8 54.8 61.1 128 Age  0–11 months 7.9 559 (15.2) (12.7) (29.4) (31.4) (40.6) 44 12–23 months 7.5 661 30.4 23.9 60.0 63.4 70.5 49 24–35 months 9.0 748 51.5 35.5 82.2 92.1 93.9 67 36–47 months 8.7 663 (45.2) (16.1) (60.3) (60.3) (66.8) 58 48–59 months 4.5 743 (24.5) (25.4) (88.9) (88.9) (91.0) 34 Mother’s education  Primary 8.5 480 (34.0) (36.8) (60.8) (63.8) (75.9) 41 Secondary 7.3 1982 30.1 18.8 59.7 62.1 65.1 145 Higher 6.3 878 42.8 29.4 73.8 82.2 88.4 55 Wealth index quintile  Poorest 10.5 634 (23.8) (26.7) (57.1) (59.9) (65.4) 66 Second 6.1 658 (58.9) (11.4) (63.7) (69.0) (76.5) 40 Middle 7.9 599 (26.3) (21.0) (54.2) (56.5) (63.5) 47 Fourth 5.2 665 (42.9) (14.6) (74.8) (74.8) (76.0) 34 Richest 7.8 818 37.7 34.2 74.8 81.4 85.8 64 Total 7.5 3374 36.0 23.5 64.5 68.2 73.4 252 ( ) Figures that are based on 25–49 unweighted cases MULTIPLE INDICATOR CLUSTER SURVEY 201074 Less than one-third (32 percent) of children under five Less than one-third (32 percent) of children under five with diarrhoea drank more than usual while 67 percent with diarrhoea drank more than usual while 67 percent drank the same or less (Table CH.2). Two-thirds (76 drank the same or less (Table CH.2). Two-thirds (76 percent) ate somewhat less, the same or more (continued percent) ate somewhat less, the same or more (continued feeding), but 24 percent ate much less or ate almost feeding), but 24 percent ate much less or ate almost nothing. Overall, 38 percent of children in rural areas nothing. Overall, 38 percent of children in rural areas were given more to drink compared with 26 percent of were given more to drink compared with 26 percent of children from urban areas with diarrhoea. children from urban areas with diarrhoea. Table CH.3 shows the proportion of children aged 0–59 Table CH.3 shows the proportion of children aged 0–59 months with diarrhoea in the two weeks preceding months with diarrhoea in the two weeks preceding the survey who received oral rehydration therapy with the survey who received oral rehydration therapy with continued feeding, and the percentage of children with continued feeding, and the percentage of children with diarrhoea who received other treatments. Overall, 57 diarrhoea who received other treatments. Overall, 57 percent of children with diarrhoea received ORS or percent of children with diarrhoea received ORS or increased fluids, 83 percent received ORT (ORS or increased fluids, 83 percent received ORT (ORS or recommended homemade fluids or increased fluids), recommended homemade fluids or increased fluids), while 12 percent received no treatment (Table CH.3). while 12 percent received no treatment (Table CH.3). Combining the information in Table CH.2 with those Combining the information in Table CH.2 with those in Table CH.1 on oral rehydration therapy, it is observed in Table CH.1 on oral rehydration therapy, it is observed that 60 percent of children either received ORT that 60 percent of children either received ORT andand, , at the same time, feeding was continued, as is the at the same time, feeding was continued, as is the recommendation. There are differences in the home recommendation. There are differences in the home management of diarrhoea by background characteristics. management of diarrhoea by background characteristics. Girls are more likely to receive ORT with continued Girls are more likely to receive ORT with continued feeding than boys, 68 percent compared to 53 percent.feeding than boys, 68 percent compared to 53 percent. Table CH.2: Feeding practices during diarrhoea, Serbia, 2010 Percent distribution of children age 0–59 months with diarrhoea in the last two weeks by amount of liquids and food given during episode of diarrhoea   Had diarrhoea in last two weeks Number of children age 0–59 months Drinking practices Given much less to drink Given somewhat less to drink Given about the same to drink Sex  Male 8.0 1670 10.7 24.8 31.0 Female 6.9 1704 1.9 10.2 55.7 Region  Belgrade 8.7 639 (1.5) (24.6) (61.4) Voijvodina 9.6 994 2.3 14.8 37.8 Sumadija and Western Serbia 6.4 905 2.4 19.2 36.2 Southern and Eastern Serbia 5.2 836 (28.4) (14.8) (37.4) Area  Urban 6.9 1810 8.6 22.4 42.6 Rural 8.2 1564 4.7 13.6 42.5 Age  0–11 months 7.9 559 (1.1) (9.6) (69.5) 12–23 months 7.5 661 4.5 16.2 43.4 24–35 months 9.0 748 9.9 33.7 26.2 36–47 months 8.7 663 (10.8) (13.6) (33.7) 48–59 months 4.5 743 (3.1) (7.3) (53.8) Mother’s education  Primary 8.5 480 (3.7) (17.6) (58.0) Secondary 7.3 1982 3.4 19.5 39.4 Higher 6.3 878 2.2 16.1 46.1 Wealth index quintile  Poorest 10.5 634 (3.0) (15.8) (56.2) Second 6.1 658 (25.4) (7.8) (36.6) Middle 7.9 599 (.0) (18.3) (23.9) Fourth 5.2 665 (11.0) (12.9) (39.7) Richest 7.8 818 1.1 29.0 47.4 Total 7.5 3374 6.6 17.9 42.6 ( ) Figures that are based on 25–49 unweighted cases ( ) Figures that are based on 25–49 unweighted cases Figure CH.1: Percentage of children under age 5 with diarrhoea who received oral rehydration treatment, Serbia, 2010 MONITORING THE SITUATION OF CHILDREN AND WOMEN 75 during diarrhoea: Total Eating practices during diarrhoea: Total Number of children age 0–59 months with diarrhoea in last two weeks Given more to drink Given nothing to drink Missing/ DK Given much less to eat Given somewhat less to eat Given about the same to eat Given more to eat Stopped food Had never been given food 33.1 .4 .0 100.0 33.0 37.7 27.0 .5 1.4 .3 100.0 134 30.7 .0 1.5 100.0 12.1 48.1 39.8 .0 .0 .0 100.0 118 (12.5) (.0) (.0) 100.0 (23.9) (19.2) (56.1) (.0) (.0) (.8) 100.0 56 42.7 .6 1.9 100.0 23.4 49.8 26.2 .0 .6 .0 100.0 96 42.2 .0 .0 100.0 13.0 52.8 33.2 .0 1.0 .0 100.0 58 (19.5) (.0) (.0) 100.0 (35.8) (43.0) (17.7) (1.7) (1.8) (.0) 100.0 43 26.0 .4 .0 100.0 30.3 38.6 29.7 .0 1.1 .4 100.0 124 37.8 .0 1.4 100.0 16.4 46.4 36.1 .6 .5 .0 100.0 128 (19.8) (.0) (.0) 100.0 (9.1) (22.2) (68.7) (.0) (.0) (.0) 100.0 44 35.9 .0 .0 100.0 28.6 42.8 27.7 .0 .0 .9 100.0 49 30.2 .0 .0 100.0 39.3 33.2 24.4 1.1 2.0 .0 100.0 67 (38.7) (.0) (3.2) 100.0 (18.2) (67.9) (13.8) (.0) (.0) (.0) 100.0 58 (34.2) (1.6) (.0) 100.0 (10.4) (44.3) (43.6) (.0) (1.6) (.0) 100.0 34 (16.2) (.0) (4.5) 100.0 (19.9) (46.9) (33.2) (.0) (.0) (.0) 100.0 41 37.7 .0 .0 100.0 20.5 44.3 33.7 .5 .9 .0 100.0 145 34.7 1.0 .0 100.0 21.1 41.6 36.3 .0 1.0 .0 100.0 55 (22.3) (.0) (2.8) 100.0 (18.3) (37.7) (41.3) (.0) (2.1) (.7) 100.0 66 (30.1) (.0) (.0) 100.0 (28.7) (49.9) (19.6) (1.8) (.0) (.0) 100.0 40 (57.8) (.0) (.0) 100.0 (19.0) (52.3) (28.7) (.0) (.0) (.0) 100.0 47 (36.4) (.0) (.0) 100.0 (26.4) (45.8) (27.8) (.0) (.0) (.0) 100.0 34 21.7 .8 .0 100.0 26.5 34.1 38.6 .0 .8 .0 100.0 64 32.0 .2 .7 100.0 23.2 42.6 33.0 .3 .8 .2 100.0 252 MULTIPLE INDICATOR CLUSTER SURVEY 201076 Table CH.3: Oral rehydration therapy with continued feeding and other treatments, Serbia, 2010 Percentage of children age 0–59 months with diarrhoea in the last two weeks who received oral rehydration therapy with continued feeding, and percentage of children with diarrhoea who received other treatments   Children with diarrhoea who received: Other treatments: ORS or increased fluids ORT (ORS or recommended homemade fluids or increased fluids) ORT with continued feeding1 Pill or syrup Injection Anti- biotic Anti- motility Zinc Other Unknown Anti- biotic Non- antibiotic Unknown Sex  Male 63.9 87.1 52.9 5.1 27.5 .0 1.0 5.3 1.0 .0 .5 Female 48.2 78.8 67.5 4.5 19.4 .0 1.0 .5 .0 .0 .0 Region  Belgrade (41.8) (82.8) (58.0) (5.0) (12.3) (0.0) (0.6) (4.5) (0.7) (0.0) (0.0) Vojvodina 60.9 82.6 60.5 4.2 20.7 .0 .0 2.5 .0 .0 .7 Sumadija and Western Serbia 58.6 75.3 61.4 4.5 17.0 .0 1.9 3.6 .0 .0 .0 Southern and Eastern Serbia (63.4) (95.5) (57.9) (6.4) (54.3) (0.0) (2.4) (1.8) (2.3) (0.0) (0.0) Area  Urban 62.4 87.8 56.9 6.0 28.2 .0 1.1 2.7 .6 .0 .0 Rural 51.0 78.7 62.4 3.7 19.4 .0 .9 3.5 .5 .0 .5 Age  0–11 months (33.2) (41.6) (32.5) (5.3) (7.1) (0.0) (4.0) (0.0) (0.0) (0.0) (0.0) 12–23 months 53.9 86.8 58.9 8.9 22.8 .0 .0 6.6 .7 .0 .0 24–35 months 67.6 97.2 55.9 2.9 37.9 .0 .6 4.9 1.0 .0 .0 36–47 months (72.3) (90.9) (73.2) (4.3) (19.8) (0.0) (0.0) (0.0) (0.0) (0.0) (1.2) 48–59 months (42.3) (91.0) (81.1) (2.9) (25.2) (0.0) (1.0) (3.5) (1.1) (0.0) (0.0) Mother’s education  Primary (37.4) (77.8) (57.9) (2.8) (18.5) (.0) (2.8) (9.8) (.0) (.0) (.0) Secondary 57.0 80.7 60.5 5.7 18.6 .0 .9 2.6 1.0 .0 .5 Higher 63.7 90.4 68.3 4.9 27.2 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 Wealth index quintile  Poorest (34.2) (66.6) (45.5) (1.5) (23.4) (.0) (2.6) (11.6) (.0) (.0) (.0) Second (82.2) (95.5) (66.8) (4.9) (29.2) (.0) (.0) (.0) (1.7) (.0) (.0) Middle (67.8) (93.3) (74.3) (3.5) (19.5) (.0) (.7) (.0) (.0) (.0) (1.4) Fourth (61.6) (80.8) (58.8) (8.1) (26.9) (.0) (.0) (.0) (1.0) (.0) (.0) Richest 52.9 86.6 59.7 7.5 22.1 .0 .6 .0 .6 .0 .0 Total 56.6 83.2 59.7 4.8 23.7 .0 1.0 3.1 .5 .0 .3 1 MICS indicator 3.8 ( ) Figures that are based on 25–49 unweighted cases MONITORING THE SITUATION OF CHILDREN AND WOMEN 77 Not given any treatment or drug Number of children age 0–59 months with diarrhoea in last two weeks Intra- venous Home remedy, herbal medicine Other .0 1.1 15.7 8.5 134 .0 .0 27.3 16.2 118 (0.0) (2.7) (14.3) (17.2) 56 .0 .0 36.5 9.6 96 .0 .0 6.1 20.4 58 (0.0) (0.0) (16.1) (0.0) 43 .0 1.2 12.2 7.2 124 .0 .0 29.7 16.9 128 (0.0) (0.0) (1.1) (53.0) 44 .0 2.2 32.1 6.4 49 .0 .0 23.1 1.0 67 (0.0) (0.7) (26.9) (4.9) 58 (0.0) (0.0) (17.7) (1.5) 34 (.0) (.0) (39.1) (17.7) 41 .0 .0 22.8 13.3 145 .0 1.2 7.6 7.3 55 (.0) (1.2) (23.2) (28.2) 66 (.0) (.0) (15.9) (4.5) 40 (.0) (.0) (33.6) (5.5) 47 (.0) (.0) (19.4) (6.6) 34 .0 1.1 14.0 8.0 64 .0 .6 21.1 12.1 252 ( ) Figures that are based on 25–49 unweighted cases Figure CH.2: Percentage of children under age 5 with diarrhoea who received ORT or increased fluids, AND continued feeding, Serbia, 2010 MULTIPLE INDICATOR CLUSTER SURVEY 201078 Oral Rehydration TreatmentOral Rehydration Treatment in Roma Settlementsin Roma Settlements Overall, 14 percent of children under five from Roma Overall, 14 percent of children under five from Roma settlements had diarrhoea in the two weeks preceding the settlements had diarrhoea in the two weeks preceding the survey (Table CH.1R). Diarrhoea prevalence was highest survey (Table CH.1R). Diarrhoea prevalence was highest among children aged 0–11 months (17 percent).among children aged 0–11 months (17 percent). Table CH.1R also shows the percentage of children Table CH.1R also shows the percentage of children receiving various types of recommended liquids during receiving various types of recommended liquids during the episode of diarrhoea. Since mothers were able to name the episode of diarrhoea. Since mothers were able to name more than one type of liquid, the percentages do not more than one type of liquid, the percentages do not necessarily add up to 100. About 32 percent of children necessarily add up to 100. About 32 percent of children received fluids from ORS packets or pre-packaged ORS received fluids from ORS packets or pre-packaged ORS fluids and 63 percent received recommended homemade fluids and 63 percent received recommended homemade fluids. Approximately 71 percent of children with fluids. Approximately 71 percent of children with diarrhoea received one or more of the recommended diarrhoea received one or more of the recommended home treatments (i.e., were treated with ORS or any home treatments (i.e., were treated with ORS or any recommended homemade fluid). recommended homemade fluid). Table CH.1R: Oral rehydration solutions and recommended homemade fluids, Roma Settlements, 2010 Percentage of children age 0–59 months with diarrhoea in the last two weeks, and treatment with oral rehydration solutions and recommended homemade fluids Had diarrhoea in last two weeks Number of children age 0–59 months Children with diarrhoea who received: Number of children age 0–59 months with diarrhoea in last two weeks ORS (Fluid from ORS packet or pre- packaged ORS fluid) Recommended homemade fluids ORS or any recommended homemade fluid Boiled rice water Instant or stock cube soup Any recommended homemade fluid Sex  Male 13.4 823 37.6 28.3 60.8 62.8 71.8 111 Female 15.3 781 26.7 31.8 61.5 63.3 70.5 119 Area  Urban 13.5 1084 31.4 28.6 65.4 67.3 71.9 146 Rural 16.0 520 32.8 32.8 53.7 55.7 69.7 83 Age  0–11 months 17.1 255 (31.3) (27.2) (41.1) (41.1) (58.3) 44 12–23 months 16.5 337 38.6 19.9 70.1 72.9 78.4 55 24–35 months 16.4 360 20.4 39.0 64.7 65.9 73.1 59 36–47 months 13.2 305 (49.2) (44.0) (74.1) (75.0) (79.0) 40 48–59 months 9.0 347 (20.2) (17.4) (50.1) (55.5) (62.1) 31 Mother’s education  None 10.9 319 (38.4) (28.4) (57.6) (60.8) (66.9) 35 Primary 15.9 1111 31.4 32.6 64.0 65.9 74.8 176 Secondary 10.7 166 (*) (*) (*) (*) (*) 18 Wealth index quintile  Poorest 14.8 396 32.1 30.4 50.1 52.5 67.0 59 Second 14.8 380 34.5 34.9 63.5 64.5 74.3 56 Middle 12.8 288 (21.8) (29.8) (67.2) (69.8) (73.6) 37 Fourth 10.6 276 (23.7) (17.9) (62.5) (67.5) (72.0) 29 Richest 18.5 264 (41.2) (31.7) (66.4) (66.4) (70.0) 49 Total 14.3 1604 31.9 30.1 61.2 63.1 71.1 230 ( ) Figures that are based on 25–49 unweighted cases (*) Figures that are based on less than 25 unweighted cases MULTIPLE INDICATOR CLUSTER SURVEY 201078 MONITORING THE SITUATION OF CHILDREN AND WOMEN 79 About one-third (31 percent) of children under five About one-third (31 percent) of children under five with diarrhoea drank more than usual while 65 percent with diarrhoea drank more than usual while 65 percent drank the same or less (Table CH.2R). Three quarters (76 drank the same or less (Table CH.2R). Three quarters (76 percent) ate somewhat less, the same or more (continued percent) ate somewhat less, the same or more (continued feeding); but 21 percent ate much less. feeding); but 21 percent ate much less. Table CH.2R: Feeding practices during diarrhoea, Roma Settlements, 2010 Percent distribution of children age 0–59 months with diarrhoea in the last two weeks by amount of liquids and food given during episode of diarrhoea   Had diar- rhoea in last two weeks Number of children age 0–59 months Drinking practices during diarrhoea: Total Eating practices during diarrhoea: Total Number of children age 0–59 months with diar- rhoea in last two weeks Given much less to drink Given some- what less to drink Given about the same to drink Given more to drink Missing /DK Given much less to eat Given some- what less to eat Given about the same to eat Given more to eat Stopped food Had never been given food Missing /DK Sex  Male 13.4 823 12.3 27.4 22.9 33.1 4.4 100.0 21.4 52.7 20.0 2.4 .4 .0 3.1 100.0 111 Female 15.3 781 16.0 23.0 28.5 29.1 3.3 100.0 20.7 45.8 23.5 7.0 .0 .4 2.5 100.0 119 Area  Urban 13.5 1084 14.2 21.2 30.4 28.6 5.6 100.0 17.6 48.8 23.0 6.5 .0 .1 4.0 100.0 146 Rural 16.0 520 14.2 31.9 17.8 35.2 .7 100.0 27.1 49.6 19.8 1.8 .6 .3 .7 100.0 83 Age  0–11 months 17.1 255 (16.2) (25.6) (28.5) (24.6) (5.1) 100.0 (11.9) (56.6) (21.4) (5.0) (0.0) (0.0) (5.1) 100.0 44 12–23 months 16.5 337 25.0 33.3 16.6 22.6 2.5 100.0 28.9 58.2 7.9 .8 .9 .8 2.5 100.0 55 24–35 months 16.4 360 9.0 16.2 21.3 50.9 2.6 100.0 18.7 35.7 30.4 14.1 .0 .0 1.1 100.0 59 36–47 months 13.2 305 (7.2) (28.2) (33.9) (28.7) (2.0) 100.0 (24.8) (51.2) (22.1) (0.0) (0.0) (0.0) (2.0) 100.0 40 48–59 months 9.0 347 (11.2) (22.9) (36.8) (20.2) (8.9) 100.0 (19.5) (45.5) (30.4) (0.0) (0.0) (0.0) (4.5) 100.0 31 Mother’s education  None 10.9 319 (26.2) (36.9) (21.3) (11.8) (3.7) 100.0 (33.1) (39.5) (23.7) (0.0) (0.0) (0.0) (3.7) 100.0 35 Primary 15.9 1111 11.9 22.9 27.3 33.6 4.2 100.0 18.8 49.2 22.3 6.2 .3 .3 2.9 100.0 176 Secondary 10.7 166 (*) (*) (*) (*) (*) 100.0 (*) (*) (*) (*) (*) (*) (*) 100.0 18 Wealth index quintile  Poorest 14.8 396 14.9 27.5 24.8 24.2 8.6 100.0 29.7 38.0 20.7 2.5 .0 .4 8.6 100.0 59 Second 14.8 380 23.2 27.2 16.4 29.0 4.2 100.0 19.6 57.0 17.8 2.2 .9 .0 2.5 100.0 56 Middle 12.8 288 (3.3) (48.0) (17.2) (29.4) (2.2) 100.0 (9.6) (62.2) (28.3) (0.0) (0.0) (0.0) (0.0) 100.0 37 Fourth 10.6 276 (27.9) (11.2) (40.9) (20.0) (0.0) 100.0 (30.3) (43.4) (25.6) (0.0) (0.0) (0.7) (0.0) 100.0 29 Richest 18.5 264 (3.0) (10.9) (35.5) (49.4) (1.2) 100.0 (15.4) (47.0) (20.7) (16.9) (0.0) (0.0) (0.0) 100.0 49 Total 14.3 1604 14.2 25.1 25.8 31.0 3.8 100.0 21.0 49.1 21.8 4.8 .2 .2 2.8 100.0 230 ( ) Figures that are based on 25–49 unweighted cases (*) Figures that are based on less than 25 unweighted cases MONITORING THE SITUATION OF CHILDREN AND WOMEN 79 Figure CH.1R: Percentage of children under age 5 with diarrhoea who received oral rehydration treatment, Roma settlements, 2010 ( ) Figure is based on 25–49 unweighted cases MULTIPLE INDICATOR CLUSTER SURVEY 201080 Table CH.3R provides the proportion of children aged Table CH.3R provides the proportion of children aged 0–59 months with diarrhoea in the last two weeks 0–59 months with diarrhoea in the last two weeks who received oral rehydration therapy with continued who received oral rehydration therapy with continued feeding, and the percentage of children with diarrhoea feeding, and the percentage of children with diarrhoea who received other treatments. Overall, 56 percent who received other treatments. Overall, 56 percent of children with diarrhoea received ORS or increased of children with diarrhoea received ORS or increased fluids, 79 percent received ORT (ORS or recommended fluids, 79 percent received ORT (ORS or recommended homemade fluids or increased fluids), while 9 percent homemade fluids or increased fluids), while 9 percent (Table CH.3R) received no treatment. Combining the (Table CH.3R) received no treatment. Combining the information in Table CH.2R with those in Table CH.1R information in Table CH.2R with those in Table CH.1R on oral rehydration therapy, it is observed that 60 percent on oral rehydration therapy, it is observed that 60 percent of children either received ORT of children either received ORT andand, at the same time, , at the same time, feeding was continued, as is the recommendation. There feeding was continued, as is the recommendation. There are differences in the home management of diarrhoea are differences in the home management of diarrhoea Table CH.3R: Oral rehydration therapy with continued feeding and other treatments, Roma Settlements, 2010 Percentage of children age 0–59 months with diarrhoea in the last two weeks who received oral rehydration therapy with continued feeding, and percentage of children with diarrhoea who received other treatments   Children with diarrhoea who received: Other treatments: ORS or increased fluids ORT (ORS or recommended homemade fluids or increased fluids) ORT with continued feeding1 Pill or syrup Injection Anti- biotic Anti- motility Zinc Other Unknown Anti- biotic Non- antibiotic Unknown Sex  Male 58.0 74.6 56.1 5.2 45.1 .0 4.7 6.4 .7 .0 .5 Female 53.5 83.0 63.2 11.1 42.2 .0 1.8 8.8 .8 .0 2.3 Area  Urban 54.0 83.1 64.4 11.7 43.9 .0 3.5 10.9 .6 .0 .0 Rural 58.6 71.6 51.7 2.2 43.1 .0 2.8 2.0 .9 .0 4.0 Age 0–11 months (52.7) (72.3) (57.9) (0.0) (23.6) (0.0) (1.0) (6.2) (0.8) (0.0) (0.0) 12–23 months 54.1 78.4 54.4 6.6 42.7 .0 10.3 3.3 2.4 .0 5.0 24–35 months 64.0 88.5 73.1 18.5 54.0 .0 1.0 12.2 .0 .0 1.0 36–47 months (66.8) (83.9) (58.2) (3.4) (53.1) (0.0) (1.7) (10.4) (0.0) (0.0) (0.0) 48–59 months (32.0) (64.6) (48.6) (9.5) (41.2) (0.0) (0.0) (5.3) (0.0) (0.0) (0.0) Mother’s education  None (48.9) (70.4) (48.9) (1.6) (37.1) (0.0) (12.2) (4.5) (0.0) (0.0) (8.0) Primary 55.7 81.2 61.7 9.6 48.0 .0 1.8 9.1 .9 .0 .3 Secondary (*) (*) (*) (*) (*) (*) (*) (*) (*) (*) (*) Wealth index quintile  Poorest 50.2 73.0 47.2 2.4 28.6 .0 .7 12.6 .0 .0 4.7 Second 61.2 75.3 56.5 1.5 45.1 .0 10.8 4.1 1.3 .0 1.1 Middle (49.9) (76.3) (66.7) (9.5) (50.1) (0.0) (1.0) (20.0) (0.0) (0.0) (0.0) Fourth (30.9) (72.0) (46.0) (3.1) (51.3) (0.0) (1.6) (0.0) (0.0) (0.0) (0.0) Richest (74.8) (96.5) (81.6) (25.2) (50.4) (0.0) (0.0) (1.2) (1.9) (0.0) (0.0) Total 55.6 79.0 59.8 8.3 43.6 .0 3.2 7.7 .7 .0 1.5 1 MICS indicator 3.8 ( ) Figures that are based on 25–49 unweighted cases (*) Figures that are based on less than 25 unweighted cases MULTIPLE INDICATOR CLUSTER SURVEY 201080 MONITORING THE SITUATION OF CHILDREN AND WOMEN 81 Not given any treatment or drug Number of children age 0–59 months with diarrhoea in last two weeks Intravenous Home remedy, herbal medicine Other 1.3 9.2 7.4 8.9 111 2.3 18.6 8.1 8.4 119 1.0 20.7 7.9 6.2 146 3.3 2.5 7.5 12.9 83 (1.3) (13.7) (4.4) (12.4) 44 5.0 9.5 4.6 7.4 55 .0 21.5 18.6 4.9 59 (0.0) (8.2) (5.9) (3.2) 40 (2.7) (16.2) (0.0) (19.6) 31 (10.4) (15.3) (0.0) (10.2) 35 .3 14.6 9.9 6.4 176 (*) (*) (*) (*) 18 4.7 18.9 11.9 13.6 59 1.5 8.3 2.3 8.3 56 (1.5) (23.6) (13.9) (5.8) 37 (0.0) (7.0) (5.1) (12.1) 29 (0.0) (12.0) (6.3) (3.0) 49 1.8 14.1 7.8 8.6 230 by background characteristics. Children in urban areas by background characteristics. Children in urban areas are more likely to receive ORT with continued feeding are more likely to receive ORT with continued feeding (64 percent) than children in rural areas (52 percent). (64 percent) than children in rural areas (52 percent). Differences are also obvious if mother’s education and Differences are also obvious if mother’s education and wealth quintiles are taken into account. wealth quintiles are taken into account. MONITORING THE SITUATION OF CHILDREN AND WOMEN 81 ( ) Figure is based on 25–49 unweighted cases Figure CH.2R: Percentage of children under age 5 with diarrhoea who received ORT or increased fluids, AND continued feeding, Roma settlements, 2010 MULTIPLE INDICATOR CLUSTER SURVEY 201082 Care Seeking and AntibioticCare Seeking and Antibiotic Treatment of PneumoniaTreatment of Pneumonia Pneumonia is the leading cause of death in children and the Pneumonia is the leading cause of death in children and the use of antibiotics in under-5s with suspected pneumonia is a use of antibiotics in under-5s with suspected pneumonia is a key intervention. A World Fit for Children goal is to reduce key intervention. A World Fit for Children goal is to reduce deaths due to acute respiratory infections by one-third.deaths due to acute respiratory infections by one-third. Children with suspected pneumonia are those who have Children with suspected pneumonia are those who have had an illness with a cough accompanied by rapid or had an illness with a cough accompanied by rapid or difficult breathing and whose symptoms were NOT due difficult breathing and whose symptoms were NOT due to a problem in the chest and a blocked nose.to a problem in the chest and a blocked nose. The indicators are:The indicators are:  Prevalence of suspected pneumonia Prevalence of suspected pneumonia  Care seeking for suspected pneumonia Care seeking for suspected pneumonia  Antibiotic treatment for suspected pneumonia Antibiotic treatment for suspected pneumonia  Knowledge of the danger signs of pneumonia Knowledge of the danger signs of pneumonia Table CH.4 presents the prevalence of suspected Table CH.4 presents the prevalence of suspected pneumonia and, if care was sought outside the home, pneumonia and, if care was sought outside the home, the site of care. In total, 5 percent of children aged the site of care. In total, 5 percent of children aged 0–59 months were reported to have had symptoms 0–59 months were reported to have had symptoms of pneumonia during the two weeks preceding the of pneumonia during the two weeks preceding the survey. Of these children, 90 percent were taken to survey. Of these children, 90 percent were taken to an appropriate health care provider. Children with an appropriate health care provider. Children with suspected pneumonia were most often taken to a public suspected pneumonia were most often taken to a public health care provider — to a primary health care centre health care provider — to a primary health care centre (38 percent) or to a government hospital (35 percent).(38 percent) or to a government hospital (35 percent). Table CH.4 also presents the use of antibiotics for the Table CH.4 also presents the use of antibiotics for the treatment of suspected pneumonia in under-5s by sex, treatment of suspected pneumonia in under-5s by sex, age, region, residence, age, and socioeconomic factors. age, region, residence, age, and socioeconomic factors. In Serbia, 82 percent of children under-5 with suspected In Serbia, 82 percent of children under-5 with suspected pneumonia had received an antibiotic during the two pneumonia had received an antibiotic during the two weeks prior to the survey. weeks prior to the survey. Issues related to knowledge of danger signs of pneumonia Issues related to knowledge of danger signs of pneumonia are presented in Table CH.5. Obviously, a mothers’ are presented in Table CH.5. Obviously, a mothers’ knowledge of the danger signs is an important determinant knowledge of the danger signs is an important determinant of care-seeking behaviour. Overall, 26 percent of women of care-seeking behaviour. Overall, 26 percent of women knew of the two danger signs of pneumonia — fast knew of the two danger signs of pneumonia — fast and difficult breathing. The most commonly identified and difficult breathing. The most commonly identified symptom for taking a child to a health facility is developing symptom for taking a child to a health facility is developing a fever (85 percent). Furthermore, 47 percent of mothers a fever (85 percent). Furthermore, 47 percent of mothers Table CH.4: Care seeking for suspected pneumonia and antibiotic use during suspected pneumonia, Serbia, 2010 Percentage of children age 0–59 months with suspected pneumonia in the last two weeks who were taken to a health provider and percentage of children who were given antibiotics   Had suspected pneumonia in the last two weeks Number of children age 0–59 months Children with suspected Public sources Govt. hospital Govt. health centre Govt. health post Other public Sex  Male 6.8 1670 33.0 44.4 14.3 .0 Female 4.0 1704 37.5 26.7 15.9 1.3 Region  Belgrade 4.9 639 (*) (*) (*) (*) Vojvodina 8.1 994 21.1 27.1 30.8 1.1 Sumadija and Western Serbia 5.7 905 58.8 30.2 2.9 .0 Southern and Eastern Serbia 2.2 836 (*) (*) (*) (*) Area  Urban 6.3 1810 38.7 37.1 12.6 .8 Rural 4.3 1564 27.7 38.9 18.9 .0 Age  0–11 months 2.4 559 (*) (*) (*) (*) 12–23 months 7.6 661 49.2 31.5 7.8 .0 24–35 months 7.0 748 (23.1) (56.8) (18.7) (0.0) 36–47 months 6.3 663 (29.5) (26.6) (17.5) (0.0) 48–59 months 3.3 743 (37.6) (34.9) (11.3) (3.8) Mother’s education Primary 6.4 480 (37.2) (29.2) (20.8) (3.0) Secondary 5.6 1982 29.6 37.1 15.3 .0 Higher 4.6 878 46.7 46.2 9.2 .0 Wealth index quintile  Poorest 6.7 634 (39.1) (25.8) (18.3) (.0) Second 4.7 658 (26.4) (29.5) (17.4) (.0) Middle 4.3 599 (37.6) (25.0) (30.7) (.0) Fourth 4.1 665 (35.4) (56.7) (8.0) (.0) Richest 6.8 818 34.2 48.1 7.0 1.6 Total 5.4 3374 34.7 37.8 14.9 .5 1 MICS indicator 3.9 2 MICS indicator 3.10 ( ) Figures that are based on 25–49 unweighted cases (*) Figures that are based on less than 25 unweighted cases MONITORING THE SITUATION OF CHILDREN AND WOMEN 83 pneumonia who were taken to: Other Any appropriate provider1 Percentage of children with suspected pneumonia who received antibiotics in the last two weeks2 Number of children age 0–59 months with suspected pneumonia in the last two weeks Private sources Other source Private hospital/ clinic Private physician Private pharmacy Other private medical Relative or friend Trad. Practitioner Roma health mediator .6 2.6 1.4 .0 2.8 .0 .0 .0 88.7 84.5 114 3.5 9.5 2.5 .0 1.9 .0 .0 1.3 91.4 76.8 68 (*) (*) (*) (*) (*) (*) (*) (*) (*) (*) 31 1.4 9.7 2.5 .0 3.4 .0 .0 1.1 88.9 75.1 81 2.6 .9 .0 .0 .9 .0 .0 .0 95.4 84.4 51 (*) (*) (*) (*) (*) (*) (*) (*) (*) (*) 19 2.7 6.5 1.5 .0 1.0 .0 .0 .8 90.4 82.6 115 .0 3.0 2.3 .0 5.1 .0 .0 .0 88.5 79.9 67 (*) (*) (*) (*) (*) (*) (*) (*) (*) (*) 13 1.4 5.0 1.3 .0 5.0 .0 .0 .0 93.6 89.3 50 (2.5) (6.1) (0.0) (0.0) (0.0) (0.0) (0.0) (0.0) (97.1) (81.9) 52 (0.0) (2.2) (4.7) (0.0) (3.7) (0.0) (0.0) (0.0) (75.2) (84.9) 42 (0.0) (8.9) (0.0) (0.0) (0.0) (0.0) (0.0) (3.6) (86.6) (63.8) 24 (0.0) (3.0) (0.0) (0.0) (1.5) (0.0) (0.0) (2.9) (90.2) (68.6) 31 .6 4.9 2.4 .0 3.0 .0 .0 .0 87.0 85.0 111 6.0 7.6 1.6 .0 1.7 .0 .0 .0 96.6 82.2 40 (.0) (.0) (3.7) (.0) (7.6) (.0) (.0) (2.1) (83.2) (80.3) 42 (.0) (1.4) (1.4) (.0) (.0) (.0) (.0) (.0) (74.7) (87.5) 31 (2.7) (6.0) (.0) (.0) (.0) (.0) (.0) (.0) (98.4) (63.1) 26 (4.9) (13.2) (2.3) (.0) (4.8) (.0) (.0) (.0) (95.6) (91.2) 27 2.0 6.9 1.2 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 95.9 83.3 56 1.7 5.2 1.8 .0 2.5 .0 .0 .5 89.7 81.6 182 identified difficult breathing and 32 percent of mothers identified difficult breathing and 32 percent of mothers identified fast breathing as symptoms for taking children identified fast breathing as symptoms for taking children immediately to a health care provider. There are regional immediately to a health care provider. There are regional differences in recognising the two danger signs of differences in recognising the two danger signs of pneumonia, i.e. in Sumadija and Western Serbia only 10 pneumonia, i.e. in Sumadija and Western Serbia only 10 percent of mothers/caretakers recognise those two signs percent of mothers/caretakers recognise those two signs compared to Belgrade where 61 percent of mothers/compared to Belgrade where 61 percent of mothers/ caretakers do.caretakers do. MULTIPLE INDICATOR CLUSTER SURVEY 201084 Table CH.5: Knowledge of the two danger signs of pneumonia, Serbia, 2010 Percentage of mothers and caretakers of children age 0–59 months by symptoms that would cause them to take the child immediately to a health facility, and percentage of mothers who recognize fast and difficult breathing as signs for seeking care immediately Percentage of mothers/caretakers of children age 0–59 months who think that a child should be taken immediately to a health facility if the child: Mothers/ caretakers who recognize the two danger signs of pneumonia Number of mothers/ caretakers of children age 0–59 months Is not able to drink or breastfeed Becomes sicker Develops a fever Has fast breathing Has difficult breathing Has blood in stool Is drinking poorly Has other symptoms Region  Belgrade 48.5 72.9 86.8 62.6 83.5 73.5 42.6 23.5 60.7 231 Vojvodina 19.7 34.0 78.0 26.0 48.5 28.0 10.8 55.0 20.4 359 Sumadija and Western Serbia 7.5 12.9 92.2 20.5 35.8 4.4 4.0 40.6 10.3 333 Southern and Eastern Serbia 26.2 34.9 84.6 30.0 31.6 17.7 13.2 50.5 21.9 320 Area  Urban 25.1 41.6 84.0 34.1 50.1 32.4 17.1 43.5 27.5 667 Rural 21.5 29.1 86.4 30.4 43.9 21.8 13.7 44.9 23.3 576 Mother’s education  Primary 16.8 29.5 84.5 25.0 39.4 15.9 8.9 43.4 17.0 160 Secondary 22.9 35.5 85.1 30.9 48.1 27.6 15.3 42.0 24.5 742 Higher 27.3 40.0 85.3 38.2 49.5 33.1 19.5 49.5 32.2 329 Wealth index quintile  Poorest 20.3 29.0 82.1 26.6 41.7 20.6 12.3 47.5 19.8 215 Second 20.6 31.3 85.3 31.3 45.9 21.1 14.3 38.0 24.4 242 Middle 21.5 33.4 85.9 26.1 46.2 26.6 14.0 44.5 20.6 234 Fourth 21.0 36.8 85.3 34.7 44.5 26.6 14.0 47.7 24.6 249 Richest 31.4 45.3 86.6 40.3 55.3 38.9 21.2 43.6 35.3 302 Total 23.5 35.8 85.2 32.4 47.2 27.5 15.5 44.2 25.6 1243 MONITORING THE SITUATION OF CHILDREN AND WOMEN 85 Care Seeking and Antibiotic TreatmentCare Seeking and Antibiotic Treatment of Pneumonia in Roma Settlementsof Pneumonia in Roma Settlements Table CH.4R: Care seeking for suspected pneumonia and antibiotic use during suspected pneumonia, Roma Settlements, 2010 Percentage of children age 0–59 months with suspected pneumonia in the last two weeks who were taken to a health provider and percentage of children who were given antibiotics   Had sus- pected pneu- monia in the last two weeks Number of chil- dren age 0–59 months Children with suspected pneumonia who were taken to: Any appro- priate pro- vider1 Percentage of children with suspected pneumo- nia who received antibiotics in the last two weeks2 Number of children age 0–59 months with suspected pneumonia in the last two weeks Public sources Private sources Other source Govt. hospi- tal Govt. health centre Govt. health post Other public Private hos- pital/ clinic Private physi- cian Private phar- macy Other private medi- cal Relative or friend Trad. Practi- tioner Sex  Male 19.3 823 28.4 41.9 23.6 .5 .0 1.7 .0 .0 2.6 .0 93.3 89.8 159 Female 16.4 781 13.7 55.5 23.2 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .7 .0 89.7 91.6 128 Area  Urban 16.0 1084 18.7 48.9 24.1 .5 .0 1.4 .0 .0 2.5 .0 90.4 91.2 173 Rural 21.8 520 26.6 46.5 22.4 .0 .0 .4 .0 .0 .7 .0 93.7 89.7 113 Age  0–11 months 23.3 255 33.7 36.1 27.8 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 96.6 89.0 59 12–23 months 22.7 337 23.0 39.2 26.6 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 86.9 89.0 77 24–35 months 19.5 360 22.0 52.9 21.2 1.2 .0 3.3 .0 .0 6.1 .0 98.4 97.3 70 36–47 months 11.1 305 (22.3) (69.0) (10.4) (0.0) (0.0) (0.0) (0.0) (0.0) (2.2) (0.0) (90.9) (93.1) 34 48–59 months 13.5 347 4.3 54.9 25.6 .0 .0 .9 .0 .0 .0 .0 83.8 83.2 47 Mother’s education  None 11.7 319 22.6 38.7 27.0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 88.3 83.3 37 Primary 19.9 1111 20.1 50.2 23.8 .4 .0 .2 .0 .0 1.0 .0 92.1 91.5 221 Secondary 14.3 166 (*) (*) (*) (*) (*) (*) (*) (*) (*) (*) (*) (*) 24 Wealth index quintile  Poorest 18.0 396 31.1 36.4 14.0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 1.7 .0 78.3 81.5 71 Second 15.6 380 24.9 43.9 26.0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 94.0 96.4 59 Middle 19.2 288 15.3 47.1 39.1 .0 .0 .7 .0 .0 .0 .0 96.7 91.4 55 Fourth 19.6 276 9.6 65.6 18.6 1.5 .0 4.3 .0 .0 1.7 .0 99.6 94.8 54 Richest 17.7 264 (25.7) (51.5) (21.6) (0.0) (0.0) (0.0) (0.0) (0.0) (6.3) (0.0) (94.2) (91.4) 47 Total 17.9 1604 21.8 48.0 23.4 .3 .0 1.0 .0 .0 1.8 .0 91.7 90.6 287 1 MICS indicator 3.9 2 MICS indicator 3.10 ( ) Figures that are based on 25–49 unweighted cases (*) Figures that are based on less than 25 unweighted cases MONITORING THE SITUATION OF CHILDREN AND WOMEN 85 MULTIPLE INDICATOR CLUSTER SURVEY 201086 Table CH.4R presents the prevalence of suspected Table CH.4R presents the prevalence of suspected pneumonia and, if care was sought outside the home, pneumonia and, if care was sought outside the home, the site of care. Eighteen percent of children aged the site of care. Eighteen percent of children aged 0–59 months were reported to have had symptoms 0–59 months were reported to have had symptoms of pneumonia during the two weeks preceding the of pneumonia during the two weeks preceding the survey. Of these children, 92 percent were taken to survey. Of these children, 92 percent were taken to an appropriate health care provider. Children with an appropriate health care provider. Children with suspected pneumonia were most often taken to public suspected pneumonia were most often taken to public sector health care providers (94 percent) — 48 percent to sector health care providers (94 percent) — 48 percent to primary health care centres and 22 percent to hospitals.primary health care centres and 22 percent to hospitals. Table CH.4R also presents the use of antibiotics for Table CH.4R also presents the use of antibiotics for the treatment of suspected pneumonia in under-5s the treatment of suspected pneumonia in under-5s by sex, residence, age, and socioeconomic factors. In by sex, residence, age, and socioeconomic factors. In Roma settlements, 91 percent of children under-5 with Roma settlements, 91 percent of children under-5 with suspected pneumonia had received an antibiotic during suspected pneumonia had received an antibiotic during the two weeks prior to the survey. the two weeks prior to the survey. Table CH.5R: Knowledge of the two danger signs of pneumonia, Roma Settlements, 2010 Percentage of mothers and caretakers of children age 0–59 months by symptoms that would cause them to take the child immediately to a health facility, and percentage of mothers who recognize fast and difficult breathing as signs for seeking care immediately Percentage of mothers/caretakers of children age 0–59 months who think that a child should be taken immediately to a health facility if the child: Mothers/ caretakers who recognize the two danger signs of pneumonia Number of mothers/ caretakers of children age 0–59 months Is not able to drink or breastfeed Becomes sicker Develops a fever Has fast breathing Has difficult breathing Has blood in stool Is drinking poorly Has other symptoms Area  Urban 14.4 30.7 81.6 23.9 32.1 23.4 12.7 45.6 18.2 607 Rural 13.9 16.3 83.2 11.1 18.3 11.0 10.9 61.1 10.1 272 Mother’s education None 10.0 19.8 78.4 13.0 24.3 12.7 5.1 49.1 9.2 159 Primary 13.5 27.0 81.9 19.1 28.0 20.8 12.3 50.5 15.6 611 Secondary 23.5 30.4 88.6 32.2 31.6 21.2 20.1 49.6 24.3 103 Wealth index quintile  Poorest 9.1 25.4 70.1 11.3 23.1 12.8 7.0 52.9 8.8 198 Second 7.4 18.4 80.7 12.1 20.1 9.2 5.3 50.9 7.5 198 Middle 18.9 29.8 90.3 22.9 33.2 27.2 14.1 41.6 21.1 165 Fourth 11.1 20.9 86.6 16.7 19.5 13.3 7.0 61.3 8.6 161 Richest 27.8 38.9 85.7 40.9 46.6 39.5 30.4 44.6 36.2 158 Total 14.3 26.3 82.1 19.9 27.9 19.6 12.1 50.4 15.7 879 Issues related to knowledge of danger signs of Issues related to knowledge of danger signs of pneumonia are presented in Table CH.5R. Obviously, pneumonia are presented in Table CH.5R. Obviously, mothers’ knowledge of the danger signs is an important mothers’ knowledge of the danger signs is an important determinant of care-seeking behaviour. Overall, only determinant of care-seeking behaviour. Overall, only 16 percent of Roma women know of the two danger 16 percent of Roma women know of the two danger signs of pneumonia — fast and difficult breathing. signs of pneumonia — fast and difficult breathing. The most commonly identified symptom for taking a The most commonly identified symptom for taking a child to a health facility is developing fever (82 percent). child to a health facility is developing fever (82 percent). Difficult breathing was identified as a symptom that Difficult breathing was identified as a symptom that requires immediate health care by 28 percent of mothers, requires immediate health care by 28 percent of mothers, while fast breathing was identified by 20 percent of while fast breathing was identified by 20 percent of mothers. There are high differences in recognising mothers. There are high differences in recognising these two danger signs of pneumonia depending on the these two danger signs of pneumonia depending on the mother’s education as only 9 percent of mothers without mother’s education as only 9 percent of mothers without education know the two signs in comparison with 24 education know the two signs in comparison with 24 percent with secondary education. percent with secondary education. MULTIPLE INDICATOR CLUSTER SURVEY 201086 MONITORING THE SITUATION OF CHILDREN AND WOMEN 87 Solid Fuel UseSolid Fuel Use More than 3 billion people around the world rely on solid More than 3 billion people around the world rely on solid fuels (biomass and coal) for their basic energy needs, fuels (biomass and coal) for their basic energy needs, including cooking and heating. Cooking and heating including cooking and heating. Cooking and heating with solid fuels leads to high levels of indoor smoke, with solid fuels leads to high levels of indoor smoke, and a complex mix of health-damaging pollutants. The and a complex mix of health-damaging pollutants. The main problem with the use of solid fuels is the products main problem with the use of solid fuels is the products of incomplete combustion, including CO, polyaromatic of incomplete combustion, including CO, polyaromatic hydrocarbons, SO2, and other toxic elements. Use of hydrocarbons, SO2, and other toxic elements. Use of solid fuels increases the risks of acute respiratory illness, solid fuels increases the risks of acute respiratory illness, pneumonia, chronic obstructive lung disease, cancer, and pneumonia, chronic obstructive lung disease, cancer, and possibly tuberculosis, low birth weight, cataracts, and possibly tuberculosis, low birth weight, cataracts, and asthma. The primary MICS indicator is the proportion asthma. The primary MICS indicator is the proportion of the population using solid fuels as the primary source of the population using solid fuels as the primary source of domestic energy for cooking.of domestic energy for cooking. Table CH.6: Solid fuel use, Serbia, 2010 Percent distribution of household members according to type of cooking fuel used by the household, and percentage of household members living in households using solid fuels for cooking Percentage of household members in households using: Number of household membersElectricity Liquefied Petroleum Gas (LPG) Natural Gas Solid fuels No food cooked in the household Missing Total Solid fuels for cooking1 Coal, lignite Charcoal Wood Straw, shrubs, grass Agricultural crop residue Region  Belgrade 81.9 10.0 1.2 .1 .5 6.2 .0 .0 .0 .1 100.0 6.7 4193 Vojvodina 43.7 25.6 17.8 .4 .3 11.5 .0 .4 .3 .0 100.0 12.6 5407 Sumadija and Western Serbia 36.4 7.0 .4 .1 .4 55.4 .2 .0 .0 .0 100.0 56.2 5969 Southern and Eastern Serbia 49.7 7.4 .0 .1 .3 42.4 .0 .0 .0 .1 100.0 42.8 5305 Area  Urban 67.2 12.9 5.5 .2 .2 14.0 .0 .0 .1 .0 100.0 14.3 11501 Rural 30.7 12.1 4.4 .2 .7 51.5 .1 .2 .1 .0 100.0 52.7 9373 Education of household head  None 27.1 4.8 3.3 .7 .0 63.1 .0 .0 1.0 .0 100.0 63.8 408 Primary 30.6 11.0 3.9 .3 .6 53.1 .2 .1 .2 .1 100.0 54.2 6669 Secondary 54.8 13.8 6.1 .1 .4 24.6 .0 .1 .0 .0 100.0 25.3 9870 Higher 77.8 12.4 4.3 .1 .0 5.4 .0 .0 .0 .1 100.0 5.5 3913 Wealth index quintiles  Poorest 14.7 9.3 2.2 .7 1.3 70.7 .3 .4 .4 .0 100.0 73.3 4175 Second 24.9 14.3 4.2 .1 .4 55.8 .0 .1 .0 .1 100.0 56.5 4178 Middle 50.3 16.2 8.3 .0 .0 25.2 .0 .0 .0 .0 100.0 25.2 4173 Fourth 74.2 15.0 8.2 .1 .2 2.4 .0 .0 .0 .0 100.0 2.6 4173 Richest 89.9 7.8 2.0 .0 .0 .2 .0 .0 .0 .1 100.0 .2 4175 Total 50.8 12.5 5.0 .2 .4 30.9 .1 .1 .1 .0 100.0 31.6 20874 1 MICS indicator 3.11 MULTIPLE INDICATOR CLUSTER SURVEY 201088 Overall, almost one-third (32 percent) of all households in Overall, almost one-third (32 percent) of all households in Serbia are using solid fuels for cooking. Use of solid fuels is Serbia are using solid fuels for cooking. Use of solid fuels is very low in urban areas (14 percent), but high in rural areas, very low in urban areas (14 percent), but high in rural areas, where more than half of the households (53 percent) are where more than half of the households (53 percent) are using solid fuels (Table CH.6). Differentials with respect using solid fuels (Table CH.6). Differentials with respect to household wealth and the educational level of the to household wealth and the educational level of the household head are also significant. The findings show that household head are also significant. The findings show that use of solid fuels is very uncommon among households use of solid fuels is very uncommon among households in Belgrade, and among the households in the richest in Belgrade, and among the households in the richest quintile. The table also clearly shows that wood is the most quintile. The table also clearly shows that wood is the most dominant type of solid fuel used for cooking purposes. dominant type of solid fuel used for cooking purposes. Table CH.7: Solid fuel use by place of cooking, Serbia, 2010 Percent distribution of household members in households using solid fuels by place of cooking   Place of cooking: Number of household members in households using solid fuels for cooking In a separate room used as kitchen Elsewhere in the house In a separate building Outdoors At another place Missing Total Region  Belgrade 84.6 11.7 .4 .3 3.0 .0 100.0 282 Vojvodina 81.0 8.5 6.2 .6 3.8 .0 100.0 683 Sumadija and Western Serbia 86.5 5.2 7.7 .2 .1 .4 100.0 3353 Southern and Eastern Serbia 92.2 3.0 4.6 .0 .0 .2 100.0 2269 Area  Urban 91.9 4.8 2.1 .1 .5 .6 100.0 1649 Rural 86.4 5.1 7.5 .2 .6 .1 100.0 4939 Education of household head  None 90.4 6.6 .7 2.2 .0 .0 100.0 260 Primary 83.2 7.2 8.5 .1 .7 .3 100.0 3618 Secondary 93.5 2.2 3.5 .0 .6 .2 100.0 2496 Higher 95.9 .0 4.1 .0 .0 .0 100.0 213 Wealth index quintiles  Poorest 83.5 7.8 6.7 .3 1.3 .4 100.0 3063 Second 90.8 2.5 6.6 .0 .0 .1 100.0 2359 Middle 92.3 3.5 4.0 .0 .0 .1 100.0 1051 Fourth 100.0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 100.0 109 Richest (*) (*) (*) (*) (*) (*) 100.0 7 Total 87.8 5.0 6.1 .2 .6 .2 100.0 6588 (*) Figures that are based on less than 25 unweighted cases Solid fuel use alone is a poor proxy for indoor air pollution, Solid fuel use alone is a poor proxy for indoor air pollution, since the concentration of the pollutants is different since the concentration of the pollutants is different when the same fuel is burnt in different stoves or fires. when the same fuel is burnt in different stoves or fires. Use of closed stoves with chimneys minimizes indoor Use of closed stoves with chimneys minimizes indoor pollution, while an open stove or fire with no chimney or pollution, while an open stove or fire with no chimney or hood means that there is no protection from the harmful hood means that there is no protection from the harmful effects of solid fuels. Use of solid fuels by place of cooking effects of solid fuels. Use of solid fuels by place of cooking is depicted in Table CH.7. A majority of 88 percent of is depicted in Table CH.7. A majority of 88 percent of households using solid fuels for cooking use a separate households using solid fuels for cooking use a separate room as a kitchen while only 6 percent use a separate room as a kitchen while only 6 percent use a separate building. building. MONITORING THE SITUATION OF CHILDREN AND WOMEN 89 Solid Fuel Use in Roma SettlementsSolid Fuel Use in Roma Settlements Table CH.6R: Solid fuel use, Roma Settlements, 2010 Percent distribution of household members according to type of cooking fuel used by the household, and percentage of household members living in households using solid fuels for cooking Percentage of household members in households using: Number of household membersElectricity Liquefied Petroleum Gas (LPG) Natural Gas Solid fuels No food cooked in the household Total Solid fuels for cooking1 Coal, lignite Char- coal Wood Straw, shrubs, grass Agricultural crop residue Area  Urban 27.5 1.8 .2 .1 .0 69.7 .5 .0 .2 100.0 70.4 5772 Rural 9.7 2.4 .3 .0 .1 85.5 .4 1.2 .1 100.0 87.2 2515 Education of household head  None 13.3 .3 .1 .4 .0 84.9 .4 .7 .0 100.0 86.3 998 Primary 19.7 1.3 .1 .0 .0 77.6 .6 .4 .2 100.0 78.7 5915 Secondary 39.0 5.2 .6 .0 .3 54.7 .0 .0 .2 100.0 55.0 1308 Wealth index quintiles  Poorest 3.6 .1 .0 .2 .1 94.2 .5 .6 .6 100.0 95.7 1657 Second 7.1 .6 .0 .1 .2 90.9 .2 .7 .1 100.0 92.2 1657 Middle 12.9 .5 .0 .0 .0 84.5 1.6 .5 .0 100.0 86.6 1658 Fourth 17.1 2.3 .1 .1 .0 80.2 .0 .0 .0 100.0 80.3 1659 Richest 70.1 6.3 1.1 .0 .0 22.6 .0 .0 .0 100.0 22.6 1656 Total 22.1 2.0 .2 .1 .1 74.5 .5 .4 .1 100.0 75.5 8288 1 MICS indicator 3.11 Overall, three-quarters (76 percent) of all households Overall, three-quarters (76 percent) of all households in Roma settlements in Serbia are using solid fuels for in Roma settlements in Serbia are using solid fuels for cooking. Use of solid fuels is lower in urban areas (70 cooking. Use of solid fuels is lower in urban areas (70 percent) than in rural areas, where 87 percent are using percent) than in rural areas, where 87 percent are using solid fuels (Table CH.6R). Differentials with respect solid fuels (Table CH.6R). Differentials with respect to household wealth and the educational level of the to household wealth and the educational level of the household head are also noticeable. Solid fuels are used household head are also noticeable. Solid fuels are used for cooking by 23 percent in the richest quintile in for cooking by 23 percent in the richest quintile in comparison with 96 percent in the poorest quintile. comparison with 96 percent in the poorest quintile. Solid fuel use alone is a poor proxy for indoor air Solid fuel use alone is a poor proxy for indoor air pollution, since the concentration of the pollutants is pollution, since the concentration of the pollutants is different when the same fuel is burnt in different stoves different when the same fuel is burnt in different stoves or fires. Use of closed stoves with chimneys minimizes or fires. Use of closed stoves with chimneys minimizes indoor pollution, while an open stove or fire with no indoor pollution, while an open stove or fire with no chimney or hood means that there is no protection chimney or hood means that there is no protection from the harmful effects of solid fuels. Solid fuel use from the harmful effects of solid fuels. Solid fuel use by place of cooking is depicted in Table CH.7R. About by place of cooking is depicted in Table CH.7R. About half of Roma settlements’ population (52 percent) from half of Roma settlements’ population (52 percent) from households using solid fuels for cooking use a separate households using solid fuels for cooking use a separate room as a kitchen while 45 percent share another room room as a kitchen while 45 percent share another room for cooking. About 64 percent of Roma from the poorest for cooking. About 64 percent of Roma from the poorest quintile which use solid fuels for cooking are living in quintile which use solid fuels for cooking are living in dwellings without a separate kitchen.dwellings without a separate kitchen. MONITORING THE SITUATION OF CHILDREN AND WOMEN 89 MULTIPLE INDICATOR CLUSTER SURVEY 201090 Table CH.7R: Solid fuel use by place of cooking, Roma Settlements, 2010 Percent distribution of household members in households using solid fuels by place of cooking   Place of cooking: Number of household members in households using solid fuels for cooking In a separate room used as kitchen Elsewhere in the house In a separate building Outdoors At another place Missing Total Area Urban 57.6 40.4 .2 1.1 .3 .4 100.0 4062 Rural 40.6 52.9 1.9 1.6 2.8 .1 100.0 2194 Education of household head  None 43.1 51.2 2.0 2.0 1.7 .0 100.0 861 Primary 51.7 44.8 .6 1.3 1.3 .3 100.0 4653 Secondary 60.1 38.6 .6 .0 .2 .5 100.0 720 Wealth index quintiles  Poorest 29.1 63.7 1.4 4.0 1.8 .0 100.0 1586 Second 52.6 44.1 .3 1.0 1.9 .0 100.0 1527 Middle 57.5 41.2 .1 .0 .8 .3 100.0 1436 Fourth 65.5 32.7 1.3 .0 .4 .1 100.0 1333 Richest 71.1 24.1 1.4 .0 .0 3.4 100.0 374 Total 51.6 44.8 .8 1.3 1.2 .3 100.0 6256 MULTIPLE INDICATOR CLUSTER SURVEY 201090 MONITORING THE SITUATION OF CHILDREN AND WOMEN 91 Safe drinking water is a basic necessity for good health. Safe drinking water is a basic necessity for good health. Unsafe drinking water can be a significant carrier Unsafe drinking water can be a significant carrier of diseases such as trachoma, cholera, typhoid, and of diseases such as trachoma, cholera, typhoid, and schistosomiasis. Drinking water can also be tainted schistosomiasis. Drinking water can also be tainted with chemical, physical and radiological contaminants with chemical, physical and radiological contaminants with harmful effects on human health. In addition with harmful effects on human health. In addition to its association with disease, access to drinking to its association with disease, access to drinking water may be particularly important for women and water may be particularly important for women and children, especially in rural areas, who bear the primary children, especially in rural areas, who bear the primary responsibility for carrying water, often for long distances.responsibility for carrying water, often for long distances. The MDG goal is to reduce by half, between 1990 and The MDG goal is to reduce by half, between 1990 and 2015, the proportion of people without sustainable access 2015, the proportion of people without sustainable access to safe drinking water and basic sanitation. The World Fit to safe drinking water and basic sanitation. The World Fit for Children goal calls for a reduction in the proportion of for Children goal calls for a reduction in the proportion of households without access to hygienic sanitation facilities households without access to hygienic sanitation facilities and affordable and safe drinking water by at least one-third.and affordable and safe drinking water by at least one-third. The list of indicators used in MICS is as follows:The list of indicators used in MICS is as follows: WaterWater  Use of improved drinking water sources Use of improved drinking water sources  Use of adequate water treatment method Use of adequate water treatment method  Time to source of drinking water Time to source of drinking water  Person collecting drinking water Person collecting drinking water Sanitation Sanitation  Use of improved sanitation facilities Use of improved sanitation facilities  Sanitary disposal of child’s faeces Sanitary disposal of child’s faeces For more details on water and sanitation and to access For more details on water and sanitation and to access some reference documents, please visit the UNICEF some reference documents, please visit the UNICEF ChildInfo website http://www.childinfo.org/wes.html. ChildInfo website http://www.childinfo.org/wes.html. VIIVII WATER WATER AND SANITATIONAND SANITATION Use of Improved Water Sources Use of Improved Water Sources The distribution of the population by source of drinking water The distribution of the population by source of drinking water is shown in Table WS.1 and Figure WS.1. The population is shown in Table WS.1 and Figure WS.1. The population using using improvedimproved sources of drinking water are those using any sources of drinking water are those using any of the following types of supply: piped water (into dwelling, of the following types of supply: piped water (into dwelling, compound, yard or plot, public tap/standpipe), tube well/compound, yard or plot, public tap/standpipe), tube well/ borehole, protected well, protected spring, and rainwater borehole, protected well, protected spring, and rainwater collection. Bottled water is considered as an improved water collection. Bottled water is considered as an improved water source only if the household is using an improved water source only if the household is using an improved water source for other purposes, such as handwashing and cooking. source for other purposes, such as handwashing and cooking. Overall, 100 percent of the population is using an Overall, 100 percent of the population is using an improved source of drinking water — 100 percent in improved source of drinking water — 100 percent in urban areas and 99 percent in rural areas. There is no big urban areas and 99 percent in rural areas. There is no big difference between regions, wealth index quintiles or by difference between regions, wealth index quintiles or by education of household head. education of household head. Figure WS.1: Percent distribution of household members by source of drinking water, Serbia, 2010 MULTIPLE INDICATOR CLUSTER SURVEY 201092 Improved Piped water Into dwelling Into yard/ plot To neighbour Public tap/ stand-pipe Region  Belgrade 81.4 .2 .0 .6 Vojvodina 74.6 1.2 .3 .9 Sumadija and Western Serbia 77.5 .9 .2 .0 Southern and Eastern Serbia 83.1 .6 .0 .8 Area  Urban 84.0 .1 .1 .7 Rural 72.7 1.6 .2 .4 Education of household head  Primary 75.5 1.4 .1 1.0 Secondary 81.6 .5 .1 .2 Higher 78.1 .0 .2 .8 Wealth index quintile  Poorest 67.8 3.6 .7 1.7 Second 78.6 .3 .0 .3 Middle 83.6 .0 .0 .5 Fourth 86.9 .0 .0 .4 Richest 77.9 .0 .0 .0 Total 79.0 .8 .1 .6   Water treatment None Boil Add bleach/ chlorine Strain through a cloth Region  Belgrade 92.4 .5 1.0 .0 Vojvodina 91.5 .5 .0 .0 Sumadija and Western Serbia 96.4 .2 2.1 .0 Southern and Eastern Serbia 93.0 .5 3.8 .0 Area  Urban 94.9 .4 .0 .0 Rural 91.7 .5 3.9 .0 Education of household head  Primary 92.9 .3 3.2 .0 Secondary 94.5 .6 1.3 .0 Higher 92.1 .2 .1 .0 Wealth index quintile  Poorest 93.2 .8 3.9 .0 Second 92.8 .4 3.1 .0 Middle 94.7 .6 1.0 .0 Fourth 93.6 .2 .7 .0 Richest 92.9 .3 .2 .0 Total 93.5 .4 1.8 .0 Table WS.1: Use of improved water sources, Serbia, 2010 Percent distribution of household population according to main source of drinking water and percentage of household population using improved drinking water sources Table WS.2: Household water treatment, Serbia, 2010 Percentage of household population by drinking water treatment method used in the household, and for household members living in households where an unimproved drinking water source is used, the percentage who are using an appropriate treatment method 1 MICS indicator 4.1; MDG indicator 7.8 Households using bottled water as the main source of drinking water are classified into improved or unimproved drinking water users according to the water source used for other purposes such as cooking and handwashing. 1 MICS indicator 4.2 ( ) Figures that are based on 25–49 unweighted cases (*) Figures that are based on less than 25 unweighted cases The source of drinking water for the population varies The source of drinking water for the population varies by region (Table WS.1). In Vojvodina, 75 percent of by region (Table WS.1). In Vojvodina, 75 percent of the population uses drinking water that is piped into the population uses drinking water that is piped into their dwelling and 1 percent uses water that is piped their dwelling and 1 percent uses water that is piped into their yard/plot. The second most important into their yard/plot. The second most important source of drinking water in Vojvodina is bottled water source of drinking water in Vojvodina is bottled water — 20 percent. In Sumadija and Western Serbia 11 — 20 percent. In Sumadija and Western Serbia 11 percent of the population uses protected wells.percent of the population uses protected wells. Use of in-house water treatment is presented in Table Use of in-house water treatment is presented in Table WS.2. Households were asked of ways they may be WS.2. Households were asked of ways they may be treating water at home to make it safer to drink — treating water at home to make it safer to drink — boiling, adding bleach or chlorine, straining through a boiling, adding bleach or chlorine, straining through a cloth, using a water filter, and using solar disinfection cloth, using a water filter, and using solar disinfection were considered as proper methods of treating were considered as proper methods of treating drinking water. The table shows water treatment by all drinking water. The table shows water treatment by all households and the percentage of household members households and the percentage of household members living in households using unimproved water sources living in households using unimproved water sources but using appropriate water treatment methods. The but using appropriate water treatment methods. The percentage of household members in households using percentage of household members in households using unimproved drinking water sources and using an unimproved drinking water sources and using an appropriate water treatment method is one percent.appropriate water treatment method is one percent. MONITORING THE SITUATION OF CHILDREN AND WOMEN 93 Main source of drinking water Total Percentage using improved sources of drinking water1 Number of household members sources Unimproved sources Tubewell/ borehole Protected well Protected spring Bottled water Unprotected well Unprotected spring Tanker truck Bottled water Other .6 3.2 1.0 12.4 .0 .1 .0 .2 .2 100.0 99.4 4193 .9 .3 .9 20.4 .0 .0 .1 .0 .3 100.0 99.5 5407 .6 10.8 1.8 7.6 .2 .1 .0 .3 .0 100.0 99.5 5969 4.0 7.0 1.4 2.7 .2 .0 .0 .0 .0 100.0 99.7 5305 .3 .2 .8 13.4 .0 .0 .0 .1 .1 100.0 99.8 11501 3.0 12.2 1.9 7.2 .2 .1 .1 .2 .2 100.0 99.2 9373 2.7 11.1 1.7 5.6 .4 .0 .0 .1 .3 100.0 99.2 6669 1.2 3.3 1.4 11.2 .0 .1 .1 .2 .1 100.0 99.6 9870 .5 .9 .7 18.7 .0 .0 .0 .0 .1 100.0 99.9 3913 3.1 15.8 1.7 3.9 .6 .1 .1 .4 .5 100.0 98.4 4175 2.8 9.1 2.3 6.5 .0 .0 .1 .0 .1 100.0 99.8 4178 1.6 2.8 1.4 9.9 .0 .1 .0 .0 .1 100.0 99.8 4173 .1 .2 .6 11.7 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 100.0 100.0 4173 .0 .0 .6 21.3 .0 .0 .0 .2 .0 100.0 99.8 4175 1.5 5.6 1.3 10.6 .1 .0 .0 .1 .1 100.0 99.5 20874 method used in the household Number of household members Percentage of household members in households using unimproved drinking water sources and using an appropriate water treatment method1 Number of household members in households using unimproved drinking water sources Use water filter Solar dis- infection Let it stand and settle Other Missing /DK 5.6 .0 .1 .4 .2 4193 (0.0) 24 6.4 .0 .9 .7 .1 5407 (0.0) 25 .1 .0 .0 1.1 .3 5969 (3.8) 32 2.2 .0 .2 .3 .1 5305 (*) 16 4.1 .0 .1 .5 .1 11501 (*) 21 2.5 .0 .5 .9 .2 9373 1.6 76 2.1 .0 .6 .9 .1 6669 (0.0) 52 3.1 .0 .2 .3 .1 9870 2.9 42 6.1 .0 .0 1.1 .5 3913 (*) 3 .6 .0 .5 1.2 .0 4175 .0 68 2.2 .0 .4 1.0 .3 4178 (*) 10 2.8 .0 .4 .4 .1 4173 (0.0) 10 5.0 .0 .1 .4 .1 4173 – – 6.2 .0 .0 .2 .2 4175 (*) 9 3.4 .0 .3 .7 .2 20874 1.3 97 MULTIPLE INDICATOR CLUSTER SURVEY 201094 Table WS.3: Time to source of drinking water, Serbia, 2010 Percent distribution of household population according to time to go to source of drinking water, get water and return, for users of improved and unimproved drinking water sources Time to source of drinking water Total Number of household members Users of improved drinking water sources Users of unimproved drinking water sources Water on premises Less than 30 minutes 30 minutes or more Missing/DK Water on premises Less than 30 minutes 30 minutes or more Missing/DK Region  Belgrade 97.4 .8 1.2 .0 .0 .3 .1 .2 100.0 4193 Vojvodina 97.2 1.7 .6 .0 .1 .2 .2 .0 100.0 5407 Sumadija and Western Serbia 97.0 1.3 1.1 .1 .5 .0 .0 .0 100.0 5969 Southern and Eastern Serbia 98.1 1.0 .5 .0 .1 .1 .1 .0 100.0 5305 Area  Urban 98.0 .9 .9 .0 .0 .0 .1 .1 100.0 11501 Rural 96.7 1.6 .8 .1 .4 .3 .1 .0 100.0 9373 Education of household head  None 98.9 1.1 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 100.0 408 Primary 96.5 1.9 .8 .1 .3 .3 .1 .0 100.0 6669 Secondary 97.8 .9 .8 .0 .2 .1 .0 .1 100.0 9870 Higher 97.8 1.0 1.1 .0 .0 .0 .1 .0 100.0 3913 Wealth index quintile  Poorest 94.5 3.3 .4 .1 .9 .6 .2 .0 100.0 4175 Second 97.4 .9 1.4 .0 .0 .2 .0 .0 100.0 4178 Middle 97.0 1.1 1.6 .0 .0 .0 .2 .0 100.0 4173 Fourth 98.9 .5 .6 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 100.0 4173 Richest 99.2 .4 .2 .0 .0 .0 .0 .2 100.0 4175 Total 97.4 1.2 .8 .0 .2 .2 .1 .0 100.0 20874 The amount of time it takes to obtain water is presented The amount of time it takes to obtain water is presented in Table WS.3 and the person who usually collected in Table WS.3 and the person who usually collected the water in Table WS.4. Note that these results refer the water in Table WS.4. Note that these results refer to one roundtrip from home to drinking water source. to one roundtrip from home to drinking water source. Information on the number of trips made in one day was Information on the number of trips made in one day was not collected.not collected. Table WS.3 shows that for 97 percent of households, Table WS.3 shows that for 97 percent of households, the drinking water source is on the premises. For one the drinking water source is on the premises. For one percent of all households, it takes less than 30 minutes percent of all households, it takes less than 30 minutes to get to the water source and bring water, and also one to get to the water source and bring water, and also one percent of households spend 30 minutes or more for this percent of households spend 30 minutes or more for this purpose. There is almost no difference between time spent purpose. There is almost no difference between time spent collecting water for households in urban and rural areas. collecting water for households in urban and rural areas. MONITORING THE SITUATION OF CHILDREN AND WOMEN 95 Table WS.4 shows that for 62 percent of households, an Table WS.4 shows that for 62 percent of households, an adult male is usually the person collecting the water, when adult male is usually the person collecting the water, when the drinking water source is not on the premises. Adult the drinking water source is not on the premises. Adult women collect water in 33 percent of cases, while for the women collect water in 33 percent of cases, while for the rest of the household, 1 percent of female or male children rest of the household, 1 percent of female or male children under the age of 15 collect water. under the age of 15 collect water. Table WS.4: Person collecting water, Serbia, 2010 Percentage of households without drinking water on premises, and percent distribution of households without drinking water on premises according to the person usually collecting drinking water used in the household   Percentage of households without drinking water on premises Number of households Person usually collecting drinking water Number of households without drinking water on premises Adult woman Adult man Female child under age 15 Male child under age 15 Missing/DK Total Region Belgrade 1.7 1376 (*) (*) (*) (*) (*) 100.0 23 Vojvodina 2.9 1784 52.0 46.9 .7 .5 .0 100.0 51 Sumadija and Western Serbia 2.6 1727 (12.9) (79.2) (0.0) (2.8) (5.1) 100.0 45 Southern and Eastern Serbia 2.1 1506 (52.8) (46.8) (0.0) (0.0) (0.4) 100.0 32 Area  Urban 1.8 3741 28.8 63.7 .0 .8 6.7 100.0 68 Rural 3.1 2651 36.2 61.5 .4 1.5 .5 100.0 83 Education of household head  Primary 3.1 2035 37.8 56.1 .0 2.4 3.7 100.0 63 Secondary 2.1 2888 26.8 67.8 .6 .4 4.4 100.0 60 Higher 1.9 1285 (29.3) (70.7) (0.0) (0.0) (0.0) 100.0 25 Wealth index quintile  Poorest 4.2 1538 41.5 52.6 .0 2.7 3.2 100.0 65 Second 2.5 1165 (27.5) (70.0) (1.2) (0.0) (1.3) 100.0 29 Middle 2.9 1245 (28.1) (71.5) (0.0) (0.0) (0.4) 100.0 36 Fourth 1.1 1213 (*) (*) (*) (*) (*) 100.0 13 Richest .7 1231 (*) (*) (*) (*) (*) 100.0 8 Total 2.4 6392 32.9 62.4 .2 1.2 3.3 100.0 150 ( ) Figures that are based on 25–49 unweighted cases (*) Figures that are based on less than 25 unweighted cases MULTIPLE INDICATOR CLUSTER SURVEY 201096 Use of Improved Water SourcesUse of Improved Water Sources in Roma Settlementsin Roma Settlements Table WS.1R: Use of improved water sources, Roma Settlements, 2010 Percent distribution of household population according to main source of drinking water and percentage of household population using improved drinking water sources Improved Piped water Into dwelling Into yard/plot To neighbour Public tap/ stand-pipe Area  Urban 83.1 8.9 1.3 2.5 Rural 42.6 15.4 2.6 4.7 Education of household head  None 43.2 29.3 2.5 7.0 Primary 70.9 9.8 1.7 3.0 Secondary 90.4 2.1 .9 .9 Wealth index quintile  Poorest 13.4 40.3 4.2 13.1 Second 62.9 13.0 4.0 1.3 Middle 92.1 .8 .2 .4 Fourth 91.3 .3 .0 .7 Richest 94.4 .0 .0 .3 Total 70.8 10.9 1.7 3.2 Overall, 98 percent of the population in Roma settlements Overall, 98 percent of the population in Roma settlements is using an improved source of drinking water — 99 is using an improved source of drinking water — 99 percent in urban areas and 96 percent in rural areas. percent in urban areas and 96 percent in rural areas. The availability of improved sources of drinking The availability of improved sources of drinking water varies by wealth index (Table WS.1R). Among water varies by wealth index (Table WS.1R). Among the population from the poorest households in Roma the population from the poorest households in Roma settlements, 94 percent use improved sources of settlements, 94 percent use improved sources of drinking water. Use of improved water sources grows drinking water. Use of improved water sources grows in direct relationship with the wealth index. The in direct relationship with the wealth index. The proportion of the population in Roma settlements proportion of the population in Roma settlements using drinking water piped into their dwelling is 71 using drinking water piped into their dwelling is 71 percent. But, 11 percent use water piped into a yard/percent. But, 11 percent use water piped into a yard/ plot, 5 percent use tube wells/boreholes, 3 percent use plot, 5 percent use tube wells/boreholes, 3 percent use public taps/standpipes and 3 percent use protected public taps/standpipes and 3 percent use protected wells. The population using unimproved water sources wells. The population using unimproved water sources mainly use unprotected springs or wells. mainly use unprotected springs or wells. 1 MICS indicator 4.1; MDG indicator 7.8 Households using bottled water as the main source of drinking water are classified into improved or unimproved drinking water users according to the water source used for other purposes such as cooking and handwashing. MULTIPLE INDICATOR CLUSTER SURVEY 201096 Figure WS.1R: Percent distribution of household members by source of drinking water, Roma settlements, 2010 MONITORING THE SITUATION OF CHILDREN AND WOMEN 97 Use of Improved Water Sources in Roma Settlements Main source of drinking water Total Percentage using improved sources of drinking water1 Number of household members sources Unimproved sources Tubewell/ borehole Protected well Protected spring Bottled water Unprotected well Unprotected spring Surface water (river, stream, dam, lake, pond, canal, irrigation channel) Other .1 .2 .0 2.5 .0 1.3 .1 .0 100.0 98.6 5772 17.2 9.1 2.0 2.2 2.0 1.8 .0 .5 100.0 95.7 2515 9.5 4.9 .1 2.0 1.2 .3 .0 .0 100.0 98.5 998 5.6 3.0 .8 2.2 .6 2.0 .1 .2 100.0 97.1 5915 .9 1.0 .2 3.3 .2 .2 .0 .0 100.0 99.6 1308 14.1 7.0 1.5 .1 1.7 4.0 .4 .1 100.0 93.8 1657 7.4 3.7 1.5 1.2 1.2 3.3 .0 .6 100.0 94.9 1657 3.4 1.9 .0 1.1 .1 .0 .0 .0 100.0 99.9 1658 1.4 1.5 .1 4.8 .0 .0 .0 .0 100.0 100.0 1659 .1 .5 .0 4.7 .0 .0 .0 .0 100.0 100.0 1656 5.3 2.9 .6 2.4 .6 1.5 .1 .1 100.0 97.7 8288 Table WS.2R: Household water treatment, Roma Settlements, 2010 Percentage of household population by drinking water treatment method used in the household, and for household members living in households where an unimproved drinking water source is used, the percentage who are using an appropriate treatment method   Water treatment method used in the household Number of household members Percentage of household members in households using unimproved drinking water sources and using an appropriate water treatment method1 Number of household members in households using unimproved drinking water sources None Boil Add bleach/ chlorine Strain through a cloth Use water filter Solar dis- infection Let it stand and settle Other Missing/DK Area  Urban 98.7 .8 .0 .0 .4 .0 .1 .1 .0 5772 .0 82 Rural 97.9 .4 .3 .5 .1 .0 1.1 .0 .0 2515 .0 108 Education of household head  None 97.9 .6 .8 .0 .0 .0 .7 .0 .0 998 (*) 15 Primary 98.7 .7 .0 .2 .1 .0 .4 .0 .0 5915 .0 170 Secondary 98.0 .6 .0 .0 1.4 .0 .0 .0 .0 1308 (*) 5 Wealth index quintile  Poorest 99.3 .6 .0 .0 .0 .0 .2 .0 .0 1657 .0 103 Second 97.0 .9 .5 .7 .2 .0 1.2 .0 .0 1657 .0 85 Middle 98.7 1.3 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 1658 (*) 1 Fourth 99.1 .5 .0 .0 .0 .0 .3 .2 .0 1659 (*) 1 Richest 98.2 .3 .0 .0 1.3 .0 .2 .0 .0 1656 . . Total 98.5 .7 .1 .1 .3 .0 .4 .0 .0 8288 .0 189 1 MICS indicator 4.2 (*) Figures that are based on less than 25 unweighted cases MONITORING THE SITUATION OF CHILDREN AND WOMEN 97 MULTIPLE INDICATOR CLUSTER SURVEY 201098 The amount of time it takes to obtain water is presented The amount of time it takes to obtain water is presented in Table WS.3R, and the person who usually collects in Table WS.3R, and the person who usually collects the water in Table WS.4R. Note that these results refer the water in Table WS.4R. Note that these results refer to one roundtrip from home to drinking water source. to one roundtrip from home to drinking water source. Information on the number of trips made in one day was Information on the number of trips made in one day was not collected.not collected. Table WS.3R shows that for 93 percent of households, the Table WS.3R shows that for 93 percent of households, the drinking water source is on the premises. In the poorest drinking water source is on the premises. In the poorest quintile, three-quarters of household members have water quintile, three-quarters of household members have water in the premises (75 percent). On the other hand, 97 percent in the premises (75 percent). On the other hand, 97 percent of households in urban and 85 percent in rural areas have of households in urban and 85 percent in rural areas have water on premises. For 4 percent of all households, it takes water on premises. For 4 percent of all households, it takes less than 30 minutes to get to the water source and bring less than 30 minutes to get to the water source and bring water, and 1 percent of households spend 30 minutes or water, and 1 percent of households spend 30 minutes or more for this purpose. Household members from the more for this purpose. Household members from the poorest quintile living in rural areas need more time to poorest quintile living in rural areas need more time to collect water for their households.collect water for their households. Table WS.3R: Time to source of drinking water, Roma Settlements, 2010 Percent distribution of household population according to time to go to source of drinking water, get water and return, for users of improved and unimproved drinking water sources Time to source of drinking water Total Number of household members Users of improved drinking water sources Users of unimproved drinking water sources Water on premises Less than 30 minutes 30 minutes or more Missing/DK Water on premises Less than 30 minutes 30 minutes or more Missing/DK Area  Urban 96.5 1.7 .4 .1 .0 1.3 .0 .0 100.0 5772 Rural 85.3 7.6 2.7 .1 1.7 2.1 .1 .4 100.0 2515 Education of household head  None 89.0 7.0 2.6 .0 1.2 .3 .0 .0 100.0 998 Primary 92.4 3.7 1.0 .1 .6 2.0 .1 .2 100.0 5915 Secondary 98.8 .2 .6 .0 .0 .4 .0 .0 100.0 1308 Wealth index quintile  Poorest 74.7 14.8 4.0 .3 1.6 4.2 .3 .1 100.0 1657 Second 92.3 2.1 .5 .0 1.1 3.4 .0 .6 100.0 1657 Middle 99.5 .0 .4 .0 .1 .0 .0 .0 100.0 1658 Fourth 99.1 .5 .3 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 100.0 1659 Richest 99.7 .0 .3 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 100.0 1656 Total 93.1 3.5 1.1 .1 .6 1.5 .1 .1 100.0 8288 MULTIPLE INDICATOR CLUSTER SURVEY 201098 MONITORING THE SITUATION OF CHILDREN AND WOMEN 99 Table WS.4R shows that in 50 percent of households, an Table WS.4R shows that in 50 percent of households, an adult female is usually the person collecting the water, adult female is usually the person collecting the water, when the source of drinking water is not on the premises. when the source of drinking water is not on the premises. Adult men collect water in 39 percent of cases. For the Adult men collect water in 39 percent of cases. For the rest of the households, male children under the age of rest of the households, male children under the age of 15 collect water in 6 percent, and female children in 3 15 collect water in 6 percent, and female children in 3 percent, of all cases. percent, of all cases. Table WS.4R: Person collecting water, Roma Settlements, 2010 Percentage of households without drinking water on premises, and percent distribution of households without drinking water on premises according to the person usually collecting drinking water used in the household   Percentage of households without drinking water on premises Number of households Person usually collecting drinking water Number of households without drinking water on premises Adult woman Adult man Female child under age 15 Male child under age 15 Missing/DK Total Area  Urban 3.4 1199 32.6 50.2 8.6 6.3 2.3 100.0 41 Rural 13.2 512 60.7 32.1 .0 6.5 .8 100.0 68 Education of household head  None 9.1 210 (51.4) (25.5) (3.4) (19.7) (0.0) 100.0 19 Primary 7.2 1204 49.3 42.0 3.3 3.7 1.7 100.0 86 Secondary 1.2 280 (*) (*) (*) (*) (*) 100.0 3 Wealth index quintile  Poorest 24.3 341 48.6 37.0 4.2 8.4 1.8 100.0 83 Second 5.9 355 (*) (*) (*) (*) (*) 100.0 21 Middle .3 350 (*) (*) (*) (*) (*) 100.0 1 Fourth .9 342 (*) (*) (*) (*) (*) 100.0 3 Richest .3 324 (*) (*) (*) (*) (*) 100.0 1 Total 6.4 1711 50.0 39.0 3.2 6.4 1.3 100.0 109 ( ) Figures that are based on 25–49 unweighted cases (*) Figures that are based on less than 25 unweighted cases  MONITORING THE SITUATION OF CHILDREN AND WOMEN 99 MULTIPLE INDICATOR CLUSTER SURVEY 2010100 Use of Improved SanitationUse of Improved Sanitation Inadequate disposal of human excreta and poor personal Inadequate disposal of human excreta and poor personal hygiene facilities are associated with a range of diseases hygiene facilities are associated with a range of diseases including diarrhoeal diseases and polio. Improved including diarrhoeal diseases and polio. Improved sanitation can reduce diarrheal disease by more than sanitation can reduce diarrheal disease by more than a third, and can significantly lessen the adverse health a third, and can significantly lessen the adverse health impacts of other disorders responsible for death and impacts of other disorders responsible for death and disease among millions of children in developing countries.disease among millions of children in developing countries. An improved sanitation facility is defined as one that An improved sanitation facility is defined as one that hygienically separates human excreta from human hygienically separates human excreta from human contact. Improved sanitation facilities for excreta contact. Improved sanitation facilities for excreta disposal include flush or pour flush to a piped sewer disposal include flush or pour flush to a piped sewer system, septic tank, or latrine; ventilated improved pit system, septic tank, or latrine; ventilated improved pit latrine, pit latrine with slab, and composting toilet. The latrine, pit latrine with slab, and composting toilet. The data on the use of improved sanitation facilities in Serbia data on the use of improved sanitation facilities in Serbia are provided in this report in Tables WS.5 and WS.5R.are provided in this report in Tables WS.5 and WS.5R. However, sharing of improved sanitation facilities is However, sharing of improved sanitation facilities is assumed to compromise the safety of improved sanitation assumed to compromise the safety of improved sanitation facilities, and are therefore also categorized as “unimproved facilities, and are therefore also categorized as “unimproved sanitation”, both in the context of this report (Tables WS.6, sanitation”, both in the context of this report (Tables WS.6, WS.6R, WS.8 and WS.8R), and as an MDG indicator.WS.6R, WS.8 and WS.8R), and as an MDG indicator. In Serbia, 98 percent of the population lives in households In Serbia, 98 percent of the population lives in households using improved sanitation facilities (Table WS.5); nearly 100 using improved sanitation facilities (Table WS.5); nearly 100 percent (99.8 percent) in urban areas and 97 percent in rural percent (99.8 percent) in urban areas and 97 percent in rural areas. Residents of Sumadija and Western Serbia are less areas. Residents of Sumadija and Western Serbia are less likely than others to use improved facilities (96 percent).likely than others to use improved facilities (96 percent). Table WS.5: Types of sanitation facilities, Serbia, 2010 Percent distribution of household population according to type of toilet facility used by the household   Type of toilet facility used by household Total Number of household members Improved sanitation facility Unimproved sanitation facility Missing Open defecation (no facility, bush, field) Flush/pour flush to: Ventilated improved pit latrine Pit latrine with slab Flush/pour flush to somewhere else Pit latrine without slab/open pit OtherPiped sewer system Septic tank Pit latrine Unknown place/not sure/ DK where Region  Belgrade 73.4 23.8 .2 .1 .0 1.8 .4 .0 .0 .2 .0 100.0 4193 Vojvodina 46.4 49.2 .1 .0 .0 4.0 .1 .1 .0 .0 .0 100.0 5407 Sumadija and Western Serbia 49.3 42.3 1.2 .5 .4 2.7 3.6 .1 .0 .0 .0 100.0 5969 Southern and Eastern Serbia 55.4 36.4 .8 .0 .6 5.4 1.2 .1 .0 .0 .1 100.0 5305 Area  Urban 85.5 13.0 .1 .3 .0 1.0 .1 .0 .0 .1 .0 100.0 11501 Rural 17.5 70.6 1.2 .0 .6 6.7 3.1 .2 .0 .0 .0 100.0 9373 Education of household head  Primary 30.3 56.6 1.6 .1 .6 7.2 3.2 .1 .0 .1 .1 100.0 6669 Secondary 61.0 35.8 .1 .2 .2 2.0 .7 .1 .0 .0 .0 100.0 9870 Higher 84.2 15.5 .0 .2 .0 .1 .0 .0 .0 .1 .0 100.0 3913 Wealth index quintile  Poorest 14.1 59.3 2.5 .2 1.4 17.1 4.8 .3 .0 .0 .2 100.0 4175 Second 25.4 70.7 .4 .4 .0 .7 2.4 .0 .0 .0 .0 100.0 4178 Middle 51.2 48.7 .0 .0 .0 .0 .1 .0 .0 .0 .0 100.0 4173 Fourth 85.1 14.6 .1 .2 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .1 .0 100.0 4173 Richest 98.9 1.0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .1 .0 100.0 4175 Total 54.9 38.9 .6 .2 .3 3.5 1.5 .1 .0 .0 .0 100.0 20874 MONITORING THE SITUATION OF CHILDREN AND WOMEN 101 Access to safe drinking-water and to basic sanitation is Access to safe drinking-water and to basic sanitation is measured by the proportion of the population using an measured by the proportion of the population using an improved sanitation facility. MDGs and WHO/UNICEF improved sanitation facility. MDGs and WHO/UNICEF Joint Monitoring Programme (JMP) for Water Supply and Joint Monitoring Programme (JMP) for Water Supply and Sanitation classify households as using an unimproved Sanitation classify households as using an unimproved sanitation facility if they are using otherwise acceptable sanitation facility if they are using otherwise acceptable sanitation facilities but sharing a facility between two or sanitation facilities but sharing a facility between two or more households or using a public toilet facility. more households or using a public toilet facility. As shown in Table WS.6, 98 percent of the population are As shown in Table WS.6, 98 percent of the population are using an unshared improved sanitation facility. In total, using an unshared improved sanitation facility. In total, 99 percent of the population in urban areas use unshared 99 percent of the population in urban areas use unshared improved toilets, while the figure is 96 percent within improved toilets, while the figure is 96 percent within rural areas. Overall, 2 percent of household members in rural areas. Overall, 2 percent of household members in the poorest households share sanitation facilities. the poorest households share sanitation facilities. Table WS.6: Use and sharing of sanitation facilities, Serbia, 2010 Percent distribution of household population by use of private and public sanitation facilities and use of shared facilities, by users of improved and unimproved sanitation facilities   Users of improved sanitation facilities Users of unimproved sanitation facilities Open defecation (no facility, bush, field) Total Number of household membersNot shared1 Public facility Shared by Not shared Public facility5 households or less More than 5 households Region   Belgrade 98.3 .5 .7 .0 .6 .0 .0 100.0 4193 Vojvodina 99.3 .0 .4 .0 .2 .0 .0 100.0 5407 Sumadija and Western Serbia 95.9 .1 .3 .0 3.6 .1 .0 100.0 5969 Southern and Eastern Serbia 98.1 .0 .2 .3 1.3 .0 .1 100.0 5305 Area  Urban 99.0 .2 .4 .2 .2 .0 .0 100.0 11501 Rural 96.4 .0 .4 .0 3.2 .0 .0 100.0 9373 Education of household head  Primary 95.5 .0 .7 .2 3.4 .1 .1 100.0 6669 Secondary 98.8 .2 .2 .0 .8 .0 .0 100.0 9870 Higher 99.8 .1 .1 .0 .0 .1 .0 100.0 3913 Wealth index quintile  Poorest 92.6 .0 1.6 .4 5.1 .0 .2 100.0 4175 Second 97.5 .1 .1 .0 2.3 .1 .0 100.0 4178 Middle 99.7 .0 .2 .0 .1 .0 .0 100.0 4173 Fourth 99.5 .4 .0 .0 .1 .0 .0 100.0 4173 Richest 99.8 .1 .0 .0 .1 .0 .0 100.0 4175 Total 97.8 .1 .4 .1 1.5 .0 .0 100.0 20874 1 MICS indicator 4.3; MDG indicator 7.9 The table indicates that use of improved sanitation The table indicates that use of improved sanitation facilities is correlated with the wealth index because facilities is correlated with the wealth index because about 5 percent of household members from the poorest about 5 percent of household members from the poorest and 2 percent from the second quintile use unimproved and 2 percent from the second quintile use unimproved sanitation facilities. In rural areas, the population sanitation facilities. In rural areas, the population is mostly using flush to septic tank (71 percent). In is mostly using flush to septic tank (71 percent). In contrast, the most common facilities in urban areas are contrast, the most common facilities in urban areas are flush toilets with connection to a sewage system (86 flush toilets with connection to a sewage system (86 percent). It is observed that using flush to septic tank percent). It is observed that using flush to septic tank is negatively correlated with the level of education of is negatively correlated with the level of education of the head of the household and wealth index. This is not the head of the household and wealth index. This is not surprising because usually the more educated and better surprising because usually the more educated and better off households live in urban areas where piped sewer off households live in urban areas where piped sewer systems are more common.systems are more common. MULTIPLE INDICATOR CLUSTER SURVEY 2010102 Safe disposal of a child’s faeces is disposing of the stool, by Safe disposal of a child’s faeces is disposing of the stool, by the child using a toilet or by rinsing the stool into a toilet the child using a toilet or by rinsing the stool into a toilet or latrine. Data on disposal of faeces of children 0–2 or latrine. Data on disposal of faeces of children 0–2 years of age is presented in Table WS.7. The percentage years of age is presented in Table WS.7. The percentage of children whose stools were disposed of safely was 26 of children whose stools were disposed of safely was 26 percent in Serbia.percent in Serbia. Table WS.7: Disposal of child’s faeces, Serbia, 2010 Percent distribution of children age 0–2 years according to place of disposal of child’s faeces, and the percentage of children age 0–2 years whose stools were disposed of safely the last time the child passed stools   Place of disposal of child’s faeces Percentage of children whose stools were disposed of safely1 Number of children age 0–2 years Child used toilet/latrine Put/rinsed into toilet or latrine Put/rinsed into drain or ditch Thrown into garbage Buried Left in the open Other Missing/DK Total Type of sanitaton facility in dwelling* Improved 10.0 15.5 .3 72.7 .0 .1 .0 1.4 100.0 25.5 1927 Unimproved (17.1) (20.3) (6.2) (56.4) (0.0) (0.0) (0.0) (0.0) 100.0 (37.4) 39 Region  Belgrade 6.2 15.1 .3 77.5 .0 .0 .0 0.9 100.0 21.2 359 Vojvodina 11.5 18.2 .5 68.9 .1 .2 .0 0.5 100.0 29.8 574 Sumadija and Western Serbia 9.2 15.4 .7 72.3 .0 .2 .1 2.1 100.0 24.6 525 Southern and Eastern Serbia 12.4 13.0 .0 72.8 .0 .0 .0 1.8 100.0 25.5 510 Area  Urban 10.0 15.0 .5 73.3 .0 .0 .0 1.2 100.0 25.0 1047 Rural 10.3 16.2 .3 71.3 .1 .3 .0 1.5 100.0 26.6 921 Mother’s education  Primary 13.1 22.2 .3 63.4 .2 .0 .0 0.8 100.0 35.3 296 Secondary 9.9 14.4 .5 73.2 .0 .1 .0 1.9 100.0 24.3 1116 Higher 9.5 14.9 .2 74.8 .0 .0 .1 0.6 100.0 24.4 533 Wealth index quintile  Poorest 7.6 20.3 .6 69.5 .2 .4 .0 1.5 100.0 27.8 394 Second 10.2 10.9 .0 76.7 .0 .2 .0 2.0 100.0 21.1 344 Middle 12.3 18.1 .3 68.8 .0 .0 .0 .5 100.0 30.4 334 Fourth 10.2 14.0 .3 74.3 .0 .0 .0 1.2 100.0 24.1 388 Richest 10.7 14.6 .6 72.5 .0 .0 .1 1.4 100.0 25.4 507 Total 10.2 15.6 .4 72.4 .0 .1 .0 1.3 100.0 25.7 1968 1 MICS indicator 4.4 ( ) Figures that are based on 25–49 unweighted cases * Disaggregation category “Open defacation” is not shown in the table due to a small number of occurences (less than 25 unweighted cases) MONITORING THE SITUATION OF CHILDREN AND WOMEN 103 In its 2008 reportIn its 2008 report1212, the JMP developed a new way of , the JMP developed a new way of presenting the access figures, by disaggregating and presenting the access figures, by disaggregating and refining the data on drinking-water and sanitation refining the data on drinking-water and sanitation and reflecting them in “ladder” format. This ladder and reflecting them in “ladder” format. This ladder allows a disaggregated analysis of trends in a three rung allows a disaggregated analysis of trends in a three rung ladder for drinking-water and a four-rung ladder for ladder for drinking-water and a four-rung ladder for sanitation. For sanitation, this gives an understanding sanitation. For sanitation, this gives an understanding of the proportion of the population with no sanitation of the proportion of the population with no sanitation facilities at all, of those reliant on technologies defined facilities at all, of those reliant on technologies defined by JMP as “unimproved,” of those sharing sanitation by JMP as “unimproved,” of those sharing sanitation 12 WHO/UNICEF JMP (2008), MDG assessment report — http://www.wssinfo.org/download?id_document=1279 facilities of otherwise acceptable technology, and those facilities of otherwise acceptable technology, and those using “improved” sanitation facilities. Table WS.8 using “improved” sanitation facilities. Table WS.8 ranks household population by drinking water and ranks household population by drinking water and sanitation ladders. The table also shows the percentage sanitation ladders. The table also shows the percentage of household members using improved sources of of household members using improved sources of drinking water and sanitary means of excreta disposal. drinking water and sanitary means of excreta disposal. In Serbia, 100 percent of the population use improved In Serbia, 100 percent of the population use improved drinking water, 98 percent use improved sanitation drinking water, 98 percent use improved sanitation and 97 percent use both improved drinking water and and 97 percent use both improved drinking water and improved sanitation.improved sanitation. Table WS.8: Drinking water and sanitation ladders, Serbia, 2010 Percentage of household population by drinking water and sanitation ladders Percentage of household population using: Number of household members Improved drinking water1 Unimproved drinking water Total Improved sanitation2 Unimproved sanitation Total Improved drinking water sources and improved sanitation Piped into dwelling, plot or yard Other improved Shared improved facilities Unimproved facilities Open defecation Region  Belgrade 94.6 4.8 .6 100.0 98.3 1.1 .6 .0 100.0 97.7 4193 Vojvodina 97.5 2.1 .5 100.0 99.3 .5 .2 .0 100.0 98.9 5407 Sumadija and Western Serbia 85.4 14.1 .5 100.0 95.9 .4 3.7 .0 100.0 95.4 5969 Southern and Eastern Serbia 86.8 12.9 .3 100.0 98.1 .5 1.3 .1 100.0 97.9 5305 Area  Urban 98.4 1.4 .2 100.0 99.0 .7 .2 .0 100.0 98.9 11501 Rural 81.3 17.9 .8 100.0 96.4 .4 3.2 .0 100.0 95.6 9373 Education of household head  Primary 82.8 16.4 .8 100.0 95.5 1.0 3.4 .1 100.0 94.7 6669 Secondary 93.5 6.1 .4 100.0 98.8 .4 .8 .0 100.0 98.4 9870 Higher 97.8 2.2 .1 100.0 99.8 .2 .1 .0 100.0 99.7 3913 Wealth index quintile  Poorest 77.4 21.0 1.6 100.0 92.6 2.0 5.1 .2 100.0 91.1 4175 Second 84.9 14.9 .2 100.0 97.5 .1 2.4 .0 100.0 97.3 4178 Middle 93.4 6.4 .2 100.0 99.7 .2 .1 .0 100.0 99.5 4173 Fourth 98.8 1.2 .0 100.0 99.5 .4 .1 .0 100.0 99.5 4173 Richest 99.1 .6 .2 100.0 99.8 .1 .1 .0 100.0 99.6 4175 Total 90.7 8.8 .5 100.0 97.8 .6 1.6 .0 100.0 97.4 20874 1 MICS indicator 4.1; MDG indicator 7.8 2 MICS indicator 4.3; MDG indicator 7.9 MULTIPLE INDICATOR CLUSTER SURVEY 2010104 Use of Improved SanitationUse of Improved Sanitation in Roma Settlementsin Roma Settlements When all improved sanitation facilities are summed up, When all improved sanitation facilities are summed up, 92 percent of the population in Roma settlements are 92 percent of the population in Roma settlements are living in households using improved sanitation facilities living in households using improved sanitation facilities (Table WS.5R) — 96 percent in urban areas and 83 percent (Table WS.5R) — 96 percent in urban areas and 83 percent in rural areas. In rural areas, the population is mostly in rural areas. In rural areas, the population is mostly using pit latrines with slabs (48 percent). In contrast, the using pit latrines with slabs (48 percent). In contrast, the most common facility in urban areas is flush to a piped most common facility in urban areas is flush to a piped sewer system (58 percent). The table indicates that use sewer system (58 percent). The table indicates that use of improved sanitation facilities correlates with wealth of improved sanitation facilities correlates with wealth status of the household and education of the head of the status of the household and education of the head of the household. Residents of the poorest households in Roma household. Residents of the poorest households in Roma settlements are less likely to use improved facilities (81 settlements are less likely to use improved facilities (81 percent), while this percentage is 96 percent for members percent), while this percentage is 96 percent for members of the richest households.of the richest households. Table WS.5R: Types of sanitation facilities, Roma Settlements, 2010 Percent distribution of household population according to type of toilet facility used by the household   Type of toilet facility used by household Total Number of household members Improved sanitation facility Unimproved sanitation facility Missing Open defecation (no facility, bush, field) Flush/pour flush to: Ventilated improved pit latrine Pit latrine with slab Flush/pour flush to somewhere else Pit latrine without slab/open pit OtherPiped sewer system Septic tank Pit latrine Unknown place/not sure/DK where Area  Urban 58.0 16.0 1.2 .3 .0 20.0 2.4 .8 .0 .7 .6 100.0 5772 Rural 7.8 26.7 .2 .1 .2 47.9 7.0 3.8 .0 .0 6.3 100.0 2515 Education of household head  None 17.5 12.5 2.1 .7 .0 52.7 3.7 5.6 .0 .2 5.1 100.0 998 Primary 43.4 17.5 .9 .2 .0 29.1 4.4 1.4 .0 .6 2.4 100.0 5915 Secondary 56.3 33.0 .0 .0 .4 8.8 1.1 .1 .0 .2 .2 100.0 1308 Wealth index quintile  Poorest 2.9 3.2 .7 .7 .0 73.5 1.9 6.4 .1 .1 10.5 100.0 1657 Second 21.4 16.4 2.4 .3 .0 52.4 4.0 1.9 .0 .0 1.1 100.0 1657 Middle 52.9 24.3 1.2 .2 .3 13.6 6.5 .2 .0 .7 .2 100.0 1658 Fourth 69.9 23.5 .0 .0 .0 2.6 4.0 .0 .0 .0 .0 100.0 1659 Richest 66.6 28.9 .1 .0 .0 .5 2.4 .0 .0 1.5 .0 100.0 1656 Total 42.8 19.3 .9 .2 .1 28.5 3.8 1.7 .0 .5 2.3 100.0 8288 MULTIPLE INDICATOR CLUSTER SURVEY 2010104 MONITORING THE SITUATION OF CHILDREN AND WOMEN 105 As shown in Table WS.6R, 85 percent of the population As shown in Table WS.6R, 85 percent of the population in Roma settlements is using an unshared improved in Roma settlements is using an unshared improved sanitation facility. Urban households more often use sanitation facility. Urban households more often use unshared improved sanitation facilities than rural unshared improved sanitation facilities than rural households (89 percent versus 75 percent, respectively). households (89 percent versus 75 percent, respectively). About 7 percent of the population that use improved About 7 percent of the population that use improved sanitation facilities share it with other households. The sanitation facilities share it with other households. The situation is worst for members of the poorest households situation is worst for members of the poorest households where 19 percent share sanitation facilities with persons where 19 percent share sanitation facilities with persons from other households.from other households. Table WS.6R: Use and sharing of sanitation facilities, Roma Settlements, 2010 Percent distribution of household population by use of private and public sanitation facilities and use of shared facilities, by users of improved and unimproved sanitation facilities   Users of improved sanitation facilities Users of unimproved sanitation facilities Open defecation (no facility, bush, field) Total Number of household members Not shared1 Public facility Shared by Not shared Shared by 5 households or less More than 5 households Public facility 5 households or less More than 5 households Area  Urban 89.3 .2 5.1 .9 3.7 .0 .1 .1 .6 100.0 5772 Rural 75.1 .2 7.6 .0 8.8 1.4 .3 .3 6.3 100.0 2515 Education of household head  None 70.4 .8 9.6 4.6 5.9 2.6 .6 .4 5.1 100.0 998 Primary 84.9 .1 6.0 .1 6.1 .1 .1 .1 2.4 100.0 5915 Secondary 96.0 .0 2.5 .0 1.3 .0 .0 .1 .2 100.0 1308 Wealth index quintile  Poorest 61.4 .8 15.7 3.0 5.4 2.1 .4 .7 10.5 100.0 1657 Second 83.4 .2 9.4 .0 5.8 .0 .1 .0 1.1 100.0 1657 Middle 89.6 .0 2.8 .0 7.4 .0 .0 .0 .2 100.0 1658 Fourth 94.8 .0 1.2 .0 3.9 .0 .1 .0 .0 100.0 1659 Richest 95.9 .0 .2 .0 3.9 .0 .0 .0 .0 100.0 1656 Total 85.0 .2 5.9 .6 5.3 .4 .1 .1 2.3 100.0 8288 1 MICS indicator 4.3; MDG indicator 7.9 Safe disposal of a child’s faeces means disposing of the Safe disposal of a child’s faeces means disposing of the stool, by the child using a toilet or by rinsing the stool stool, by the child using a toilet or by rinsing the stool into a toilet or latrine. Data on disposal of faeces of into a toilet or latrine. Data on disposal of faeces of children 0–2 years of age is presented in Table WS.7R. The children 0–2 years of age is presented in Table WS.7R. The percentage of children whose stools were disposed of safely percentage of children whose stools were disposed of safely was 13 percent in Roma settlements.was 13 percent in Roma settlements. MONITORING THE SITUATION OF CHILDREN AND WOMEN 105 MULTIPLE INDICATOR CLUSTER SURVEY 2010106 Table WS.7R: Disposal of child’s faeces, Roma Settlements, 2010 Percent distribution of children age 0–2 years according to place of disposal of child’s faeces, and the percentage of children age 0–2 years whose stools were disposed of safely the last time the child passed stools   Place of disposal of child’s faeces Percentage of children whose stools were disposed of safely1 Number of children age 0–2 years Child used toilet/ latrine Put/rinsed into toilet or latrine Put/rinsed into drain or ditch Thrown into garbage Buried Left in the open Other Missing/DK Total Type of sanitaton facility in dwelling  Improved 4.2 10.0 3.2 80.4 .0 .7 .2 1.2 100.0 14.2 878 Unimproved (0.8) (2.6) (7.6) (84.3) (0.0) (4.7) (0.0) (0.0) 100.0 (3.4) 51 Open defacation (2.1) (0.0) (2.4) (79.9) (0.0) (9.9) (0.0) (5.6) 100.0 (2.1) 23 Area  Urban 4.7 11.2 3.2 78.5 .0 1.0 .3 1.0 100.0 16.0 637 Rural 2.6 5.5 3.9 84.7 .0 1.5 .0 1.8 100.0 8.1 314 Mother’s education  None 2.8 6.9 2.0 82.3 .0 2.4 .3 3.3 100.0 9.7 187 Primary 3.8 10.3 4.4 79.4 .0 1.0 .2 0.9 100.0 14.1 648 Secondary 7.4 8.6 .0 84.0 .0 .0 .0 0.0 100.0 16.0 111 Wealth index quintile  Poorest 3.4 8.3 9.9 70.5 .0 4.9 .0 3.0 100.0 11.7 228 Second 3.7 12.7 3.8 78.6 .1 .0 .2 0.8 100.0 16.4 219 Middle 2.9 9.6 .0 86.8 .0 .0 .0 0.8 100.0 12.5 180 Fourth 4.8 4.7 .9 88.9 .0 .0 .7 0.0 100.0 9.5 163 Richest 5.7 10.8 .0 82.3 .0 .0 .0 1.3 100.0 16.4 162 Total 4.0 9.4 3.4 80.6 .0 1.2 .2 1.3 100.0 13.4 952 1 MICS indicator 4.4 ( ) Figures that are based on 25–49 unweighted cases Table WS.8R shows the percentages of household Table WS.8R shows the percentages of household population in Roma settlements by drinking water and population in Roma settlements by drinking water and sanitation ladders. The table also shows the percentage of sanitation ladders. The table also shows the percentage of household members using improved sources of drinking household members using improved sources of drinking water and sanitary means of excreta disposal. In Roma water and sanitary means of excreta disposal. In Roma settlements, 98 percent of the population use improved settlements, 98 percent of the population use improved drinking water, 85 percent use improved sanitation and 83 drinking water, 85 percent use improved sanitation and 83 percent use both improved drinking water and sanitation.percent use both improved drinking water and sanitation. MULTIPLE INDICATOR CLUSTER SURVEY 2010106 MONITORING THE SITUATION OF CHILDREN AND WOMEN 107 Table WS.8R: Drinking water and sanitation ladders, Roma Settlements, 2010 Percentage of household population by drinking water and sanitation ladders Percentage of household population using: Number of household members Improved drinking water1 Unimproved drinking water Total Improved sanitation2 Unimproved sanitation Total Improved drinking water sources and improved sanitation Piped into dwelling, plot or yard Other improved Shared improved facilities Unimproved facilities Open defecation Area  Urban 98.2 .3 1.4 100.0 89.3 6.1 3.9 .6 100.0 88.4 5772 Rural 67.4 28.3 4.3 100.0 75.1 7.8 10.8 6.3 100.0 72.0 2515 Education of household head  None 84.0 14.6 1.5 100.0 70.4 15.1 9.4 5.1 100.0 70.1 998 Primary 87.7 9.5 2.9 100.0 84.9 6.2 6.5 2.4 100.0 82.8 5915 Secondary 97.5 2.1 .4 100.0 96.0 2.5 1.3 .2 100.0 95.7 1308 Wealth index quintile  Poorest 71.1 22.7 6.2 100.0 61.4 19.5 8.6 10.5 100.0 57.5 1657 Second 82.3 12.6 5.1 100.0 83.4 9.6 5.9 1.1 100.0 79.4 1657 Middle 94.6 5.3 .1 100.0 89.6 2.8 7.4 .2 100.0 89.5 1658 Fourth 97.0 2.9 .0 100.0 94.8 1.2 4.0 .0 100.0 94.8 1659 Richest 99.4 .6 .0 100.0 95.9 .2 3.9 .0 100.0 95.9 1656 Total 88.9 8.8 2.3 100.0 85.0 6.7 6.0 2.3 100.0 83.4 8288 1 MICS indicator 4.1; MDG indicator 7.8 2 MICS indicator 4.3; MDG indicator 7.9 MONITORING THE SITUATION OF CHILDREN AND WOMEN 107 MULTIPLE INDICATOR CLUSTER SURVEY 2010108 HandwashingHandwashing Handwashing with water and soap is the most cost Handwashing with water and soap is the most cost effective health intervention to reduce the incidence of effective health intervention to reduce the incidence of both diarrhoea and pneumonia in children under five. both diarrhoea and pneumonia in children under five. It is most effective when done using water and soap It is most effective when done using water and soap after visiting a toilet or cleaning a child, before eating or after visiting a toilet or cleaning a child, before eating or handling food and, before feeding a child. Monitoring handling food and, before feeding a child. Monitoring correct hand washing behaviour at these critical times correct hand washing behaviour at these critical times is challenging. A reliable alternative to observations or is challenging. A reliable alternative to observations or self-reported behaviour is assessing the likelihood that self-reported behaviour is assessing the likelihood that correct hand washing behaviour takes place by observing correct hand washing behaviour takes place by observing if a household has a specific place where people most often if a household has a specific place where people most often wash their hands and observing if water and soap (or other wash their hands and observing if water and soap (or other local cleansing materials) are present at a specific place for local cleansing materials) are present at a specific place for hand washing.hand washing. Table WS.9: Water and soap at place for handwashing, Serbia, 2010 Percentage of households where place for handwashing was observed and percent distribution of households by availability of water and soap at place for handwashing Percentage of house- holds where place for handwash- ing was observed Percentage of households where place for handwashing was not observed Total Number of house- holds Percent distribution of households where place for handwashing was observed, where: Total Number of households where place for handwash- ing was observed Not in dwelling/ plot/yard No permission to see Other reasons Missing Water and soap are avail- able1 Water is available, soap is not available Water is not available, soap is available Water and soap are not available Region Belgrade 96.7 .5 1.2 1.3 .2 100.0 1376 99.7 .0 .3 .0 100.0 1331 Vojvodina 96.7 .3 2.4 .5 .0 100.0 1784 98.5 .8 .7 .0 100.0 1725 Sumadija and Western Serbia 97.3 .3 1.3 1.1 .0 100.0 1727 99.6 .1 .2 .0 100.0 1680 Southern and Eastern Serbia 97.9 1.8 .2 .1 .0 100.0 1506 99.4 .2 .4 .0 100.0 1473 Area  Urban 96.8 .5 1.6 1.0 .1 100.0 3741 99.7 .1 .3 .0 100.0 3622 Rural 97.6 .9 1.0 .5 .0 100.0 2651 98.8 .7 .6 .0 100.0 2588 Education of household head  Primary 96.5 1.2 1.4 .9 .0 100.0 2035 98.8 .8 .3 .0 100.0 1965 Secondary 97.6 .3 1.2 .7 .1 100.0 2888 99.6 .1 .3 .0 100.0 2820 Higher 97.2 .9 1.6 .2 .1 100.0 1285 99.5 .0 .5 .0 100.0 1249 Wealth index quintiles  Poorest 95.3 1.2 2.3 1.3 .0 100.0 1538 98.4 1.1 .4 .0 100.0 1465 Second 99.0 .4 .2 .3 .0 100.0 1165 99.6 .0 .4 .0 100.0 1153 Middle 98.0 .5 1.0 .4 .1 100.0 1245 99.2 .2 .6 .0 100.0 1220 Fourth 97.4 .9 1.2 .4 .1 100.0 1213 99.9 .0 .1 .0 100.0 1181 Richest 96.8 .4 1.6 1.2 .0 100.0 1231 99.6 .0 .4 .0 100.0 1191 Total 97.2 .7 1.3 .8 .1 100.0 6392 99.3 .3 .4 .0 100.0 6210 1 MICS indicator 4.5 MONITORING THE SITUATION OF CHILDREN AND WOMEN 109 In 97 percent of households in Serbia, a specific place for In 97 percent of households in Serbia, a specific place for hand-washing was observed. One percent of households hand-washing was observed. One percent of households did not give permission to see the place used for did not give permission to see the place used for handwashing (Table WS.9). Of those households where handwashing (Table WS.9). Of those households where the place for hand-washing was observed, 99 percent had the place for hand-washing was observed, 99 percent had both water and soap present at the designated place. In both water and soap present at the designated place. In the remaining 3 percent of households where the place the remaining 3 percent of households where the place for hand-washing was not observed, soap was shown for hand-washing was not observed, soap was shown in 72 percent and in 4 percent there was no soap in the in 72 percent and in 4 percent there was no soap in the household (Table WS.10). household (Table WS.10). Table WS.10: Availability of soap, Serbia, 2010 Percent distribution of households by availability of soap in the dwelling Place for handwashing observed Place for handwashing not observed Total Percentage of households with soap anywhere in the dwelling1 Number of householdsSoap observed Soap not observed at place for handwashing Soap shown No soap in household Not able/ Does not want to show soapSoap shown No soap in household Region Belgrade 96.7 .0 .0 2.0 .2 1.1 100.0 98.7 1376 Vojvodina 95.9 .6 .2 1.6 .1 1.5 100.0 98.2 1784 Sumadija and Western Serbia 97.2 .0 .1 2.6 .1 .0 100.0 99.8 1727 Southern and Eastern Serbia 97.7 .2 .0 2.0 .0 .2 100.0 99.8 1506 Area Urban 96.8 .0 .1 2.3 .1 .8 100.0 99.0 3741 Rural 97.0 .5 .1 1.7 .1 .5 100.0 99.2 2651 Education of household head Primary 95.7 .6 .3 2.5 .2 .8 100.0 98.8 2035 Secondary 97.6 .1 .0 1.7 .1 .6 100.0 99.3 2888 Higher 97.2 .0 .0 1.8 .1 .9 100.0 99.0 1285 Wealth index quintile Poorest 94.1 .8 .3 3.1 .2 1.4 100.0 98.0 1538 Second 99.0 .0 .0 .9 .0 .1 100.0 99.9 1165 Middle 97.7 .2 .0 1.7 .1 .2 100.0 99.7 1245 Fourth 97.4 .0 .0 1.8 .1 .7 100.0 99.1 1213 Richest 96.8 .0 .0 2.4 .0 .8 100.0 99.2 1231 Total 96.8 .2 .1 2.0 .1 .7 100.0 99.1 6392 1 MICS indicator 4.6 MULTIPLE INDICATOR CLUSTER SURVEY 2010110 Handwashing in Roma Settlements Handwashing in Roma Settlements Table WS.9R: Water and soap at place for handwashing, Roma Settlements, 2010 Percentage of households where place for handwashing was observed and percent distribution of households by availability of water and soap at place for handwashing Percentage of house- holds where place for handwash- ing was observed Percentage of households where place for handwashing was not observed Total Number of house- holds Percent distribution of households where place for handwashing was observed, where: Total Number of households where place for handwashing was observed Not in dwelling/ plot/yard No permission to see Other reasons Missing Water and soap are available1 Water is available, soap is not available Water is not available, soap is available Water and soap are not available Area  Urban 91.3 2.2 3.4 2.8 .2 100.0 1199 95.7 3.5 .6 .2 100.0 1095 Rural 97.2 2.0 .3 .6 .0 100.0 512 82.0 11.6 4.8 1.6 100.0 497 Education of household head  None 88.4 6.2 4.4 1.1 .0 100.0 210 78.7 16.6 3.2 1.5 100.0 186 Primary 93.7 1.8 1.9 2.6 .0 100.0 1204 91.7 5.6 2.0 .7 100.0 1127 Secondary 94.4 .7 3.6 1.2 .0 100.0 280 98.8 .5 .6 .0 100.0 264 Wealth index quintiles  Poorest 88.2 8.4 .5 3.0 .0 100.0 341 64.4 24.4 7.8 3.4 100.0 301 Second 96.7 1.9 .5 .9 .0 100.0 355 92.0 6.0 1.9 .1 100.0 343 Middle 91.4 .3 4.8 3.4 .1 100.0 350 99.6 .3 .1 .0 100.0 320 Fourth 91.3 .0 5.2 2.7 .8 100.0 342 99.8 .2 .0 .0 100.0 312 Richest 97.8 .0 1.3 .8 .0 100.0 324 100.0 .0 .0 .0 100.0 317 Total 93.0 2.1 2.5 2.2 .2 100.0 1711 91.4 6.0 1.9 .7 100.0 1592 1 MICS indicator 4.5 A specific place for hand washing was observed in 93 A specific place for hand washing was observed in 93 percent of the households in Roma settlements. Three percent of the households in Roma settlements. Three percent of the households did not give permission to see percent of the households did not give permission to see the place used for hand washing (Table WS.9R). Of those the place used for hand washing (Table WS.9R). Of those households where place for hand washing was observed,households where place for hand washing was observed, 91 percent had both water and soap present at the 91 percent had both water and soap present at the designated place, but only 64 percent within the poorest designated place, but only 64 percent within the poorest quintile. Of those households where the place for hand-quintile. Of those households where the place for hand- washing was not observed, almost every fourth household washing was not observed, almost every fourth household from the poorest quintile had no soap (Table WS.10R). from the poorest quintile had no soap (Table WS.10R). MULTIPLE INDICATOR CLUSTER SURVEY 2010110 MONITORING THE SITUATION OF CHILDREN AND WOMEN 111 Table WS.10R: Availability of soap, Roma Settlements, 2010 Percent distribution of households by availability of soap in the dwelling Place for handwashing observed Place for handwashing not observed Total Percentage of households with soap anywhere in the dwelling1 Number of householdsSoap observed Soap not observed at place for handwashing Soap shown No soap in household Not able/ Does not want to show soap Soap shown No soap in household Not able/ Does not want to show soap Area  Urban 87.9 1.8 1.4 .2 7.5 .6 .6 100.0 97.2 1199 Rural 84.3 6.2 6.5 .1 1.5 .9 .4 100.0 92.1 512 Education of household head  None 72.4 7.9 8.0 .1 8.8 2.2 .6 100.0 89.0 210 Primary 87.7 3.0 2.8 .2 5.4 .3 .6 100.0 96.1 1204 Secondary 93.9 .4 .1 .0 5.3 .2 .1 100.0 99.6 280 Wealth index quintile  Poorest 63.7 10.3 13.6 .6 8.4 2.3 1.1 100.0 82.4 341 Second 90.8 4.7 1.1 .1 3.2 .1 .1 100.0 98.7 355 Middle 91.1 .3 .0 .0 8.4 .3 .0 100.0 99.7 350 Fourth 91.1 .1 .1 .0 6.5 .8 1.5 100.0 97.7 342 Richest 97.8 .0 .0 .0 2.2 .0 .0 100.0 100.0 324 Total 86.8 3.1 3.0 .1 5.8 .7 .5 100.0 95.7 1711 1 MICS indicator 4.6 MONITORING THE SITUATION OF CHILDREN AND WOMEN 111 MULTIPLE INDICATOR CLUSTER SURVEY 2010112 FertilityFertility In MICS4, adolescent birth rates and total fertility In MICS4, adolescent birth rates and total fertility rates are calculated by using information on the date of rates are calculated by using information on the date of each woman’s last birth, and are based on the one-year each woman’s last birth, and are based on the one-year period (1–12 months) preceding the survey. The rates are period (1–12 months) preceding the survey. The rates are underestimated by a very small margin due to the absence underestimated by a very small margin due to the absence of information on multiple births (twins, triplets etc) and of information on multiple births (twins, triplets etc) and on women having multiple deliveries during the one-year on women having multiple deliveries during the one-year period preceding the survey.period preceding the survey. Table RH.1 shows adolescent birth rates and total fertility Table RH.1 shows adolescent birth rates and total fertility rate. The adolescent birth rate (age-specific fertility rate rate. The adolescent birth rate (age-specific fertility rate for women aged 15–19) is defined as the number of births for women aged 15–19) is defined as the number of births to women aged 15–19 years during the one year period to women aged 15–19 years during the one year period preceding the survey, divided by the average number preceding the survey, divided by the average number of women aged 15–19 (number of women-years lived of women aged 15–19 (number of women-years lived between ages 15 through 19, inclusive) during the same between ages 15 through 19, inclusive) during the same period expressed per 1000 women. The total fertility rate period expressed per 1000 women. The total fertility rate (TFR) is calculated by summing the age-specific fertility (TFR) is calculated by summing the age-specific fertility rates calculated for each of the 5-year age groups of rates calculated for each of the 5-year age groups of women, from age 15 through to age 49. The TFR denotes women, from age 15 through to age 49. The TFR denotes the average number of children to which a woman will the average number of children to which a woman will have given birth by the end of her reproductive years if have given birth by the end of her reproductive years if current fertility rates prevailed. The adolescent birth rate current fertility rates prevailed. The adolescent birth rate in Serbia is 24. This indicator displays great variations for in Serbia is 24. This indicator displays great variations for all background characteristics. It is 7 in urban and 47 in all background characteristics. It is 7 in urban and 47 in rural areas. It is also shows significant differences when rural areas. It is also shows significant differences when the education of mothers and wealth status are observed. the education of mothers and wealth status are observed. The total fertility rate in Serbia is 1.7. It is higher among The total fertility rate in Serbia is 1.7. It is higher among mothers with lower education and wealth status.mothers with lower education and wealth status. VIIIVIII REPRODUCTIVE REPRODUCTIVE HEALTHHEALTH Table RH.1: Adolescent birth rate and total fertility rate, Serbia, 2010 Adolescent birth rates and total fertility rates   Adolescent birth rate1 (Age-specific fertility rate for women age 15–19) Total fertility rate Region Belgrade 2.4 1.2 Vojvodina 37.7 2.1 Sumadija and Western Serbia 16.8 1.7 Southern and Eastern Serbia 36.1 1.8 Area Urban 6.7 1.5 Rural 47.2 2.0 Women’s education  Primary 153.1 2.9 Secondary 16.5 1.9 Higher 0.0 1.4 Wealth index quintile  Poorest 107.8 2.8 Second 16.0 1.6 Middle 21.2 1.2 Fourth 4.7 1.6 Richest .0 1.5 Total 23.9 1.7 1 MICS indicator 5.1; MDG indicator 5.4 MONITORING THE SITUATION OF CHILDREN AND WOMEN 113 Sexual activity and childbearing early in life carry Sexual activity and childbearing early in life carry significant risks for young people all around the world. significant risks for young people all around the world. Table RH.2 presents some early childbearing indicators for Table RH.2 presents some early childbearing indicators for women aged 15–19 and 20–24. As shown in Table RH.2, women aged 15–19 and 20–24. As shown in Table RH.2, 4 percent of women aged 15–19 have already had a birth, 4 percent of women aged 15–19 have already had a birth, 4 percent have begun childbearing and 1 percent have had 4 percent have begun childbearing and 1 percent have had a live birth before the age of 15. Furthermore, 3 percent of a live birth before the age of 15. Furthermore, 3 percent of women aged 20–24 have had a live birth before the age of women aged 20–24 have had a live birth before the age of 18. Early childbearing is more frequent among women of 18. Early childbearing is more frequent among women of lower education and wealth status.lower education and wealth status. Table RH.2: Early childbearing, Serbia, 2010 Percentage of women age 15–19 years who have had a live birth or who are pregnant with the first child and percentage of women age 15–19 years who have begun childbearing, percentage of women who have had a live birth before age 15, and percentage of women age 20–24 who have had a live birth before age 18 Percentage of women age 15–19 who: Number of women age 15–19 Percentage of women age 20–24 who have had a live birth before age 181 Number of women age 20–24 Have had a live birth Are pregnant with first child Have begun childbearing Have had a live birth before age 15 Region Belgrade 4.0 .0 4.0 2.8 121 .2 200 Vojvodina 4.3 .0 4.3 .1 183 4.7 135 Sumadija and Western Serbia 3.1 .0 3.1 .0 208 3.3 184 Southern and Eastern Serbia 3.0 .0 3.0 .0 147 5.7 186 Area  Urban 1.8 .0 1.8 .9 388 3.0 427 Rural 6.0 .0 6.0 .1 271 3.8 278 Education  Primary 29.2 .0 29.2 6.6 55 20.1 58 Secondary 1.3 .0 1.3 .0 526 2.6 263 Higher (.0) (.0) (.0) (.0) 78 .1 379 Wealth index quintile  Poorest 15.6 .0 15.6 3.8 94 9.2 105 Second 3.7 .0 3.7 .0 120 4.8 156 Middle 2.3 .0 2.3 .0 148 3.0 118 Fourth .6 .0 .6 .0 135 1.8 152 Richest .0 .0 .0 .0 161 .0 174 Total 3.5 .0 3.5 .5 659 3.3 705 1 MICS indicator 5.2 ( ) Figures that are based on 25–49 unweighted cases MULTIPLE INDICATOR CLUSTER SURVEY 2010114 Table RH.3 presents the trends for early childbearing. Table RH.3 presents the trends for early childbearing. There is a very low percentage of women who have had a There is a very low percentage of women who have had a live birth by the age of 15, both in urban and rural areas. live birth by the age of 15, both in urban and rural areas. Nevertheless, the percentage of women who have had a Nevertheless, the percentage of women who have had a live birth before the age of 18 is higher among rural than live birth before the age of 18 is higher among rural than among urban women. among urban women. Table RH.3: Trends in early childbearing, Serbia, 2010 Percentage of women who have had a live birth, by age 15 and 18, by residence and age group Urban Rural All Percentage of women with a live birth before age 15 Number of women Percentage of women with a live birth before age 18 Number of women Percentage of women with a live birth before age 15 Number of women Percentage of women with a live birth before age 18 Number of women Percentage of women with a live birth before age 15 Number of women Percentage of women with a live birth before age 18 Number of women Age 15–19 .9 388 na na .1 271 na na .5 659 na na 20–24 .0 427 3.0 427 .0 278 3.8 278 .0 705 3.3 705 25–29 .0 478 1.0 478 .5 368 2.8 368 .2 846 1.8 846 30–34 .0 413 1.2 413 .0 362 2.4 362 .0 775 1.8 775 35–39 .1 481 1.3 481 .0 310 9.0 310 .0 791 4.3 791 40–44 .0 399 2.5 399 .0 304 6.9 304 .0 703 4.4 703 45–49 .0 569 2.3 569 .6 337 10.2 337 .2 905 5.2 905 Total .1 3155 1.9 2767 .2 2230 5.8 1959 .1 5385 3.5 4726 MONITORING THE SITUATION OF CHILDREN AND WOMEN 115 Fertility in Roma SettlementsFertility in Roma Settlements The adolescent birth rate of the population from Roma The adolescent birth rate of the population from Roma settlements in Serbia is 159 (Table RH.1R). This indicator settlements in Serbia is 159 (Table RH.1R). This indicator displays great variations per type of settlement. It is 128 displays great variations per type of settlement. It is 128 in urban and 218 in rural areas. It does not show obvious in urban and 218 in rural areas. It does not show obvious differences related to mothers’ education. The total differences related to mothers’ education. The total fertility rate in Roma settlements is 2.7. fertility rate in Roma settlements is 2.7. Table RH.1R: Adolescent birth rate and total fertility rate, Roma Settlements, 2010 Adolescent birth rates and total fertility rates   Adolescent birth rate1 (Age-specific fertility rate for women age 15–19) Total fertility rate Area Urban 128.3 2.6 Rural 218.4 3.0 Women’s education  None 158.8 3.3 Primary 160.3 2.5 Secondary 165.2 3.2 Wealth index quintile  Poorest 135.0 2.6 Second 175.9 3.2 Middle 240.2 2.7 Fourth 91.3 2.4 Richest 154.3 2.7 Total 158.5 2.7 1 MICS indicator 5.1; MDG indicator 5.4 Sexual activity and childbearing early in life carry Sexual activity and childbearing early in life carry significant risks for young people all around the world. significant risks for young people all around the world. Table RH.2R presents some early childbearing indicators Table RH.2R presents some early childbearing indicators for women aged between 15–19 and between 20–24 in for women aged between 15–19 and between 20–24 in Roma settlements. As shown in the table, one-third of Roma settlements. As shown in the table, one-third of women aged between 15–19 have already had a birth, 40 women aged between 15–19 have already had a birth, 40 percent have begun childbearing and 4 percent have had a percent have begun childbearing and 4 percent have had a live birth before the age of 15. Almost one third of women live birth before the age of 15. Almost one third of women aged 20–24 have had a live birth before they are 18. Early aged 20–24 have had a live birth before they are 18. Early childbearing is more frequent among women in rural childbearing is more frequent among women in rural areas than in urban areas and among women that have areas than in urban areas and among women that have no education or only primary education. no education or only primary education. Table RH.2R: Early childbearing, Roma Settlements, 2010 Percentage of women age 15–19 years who have had a live birth or who are pregnant with the first child and percentage of women age 15–19 years who have begun childbearing, percentage of women who have had a live birth before age 15, and percentage of women age 20–24 who have had a live birth before age 18 Percentage of women age 15–19 who: Number of women age 15–19 Percentage of women age 20–24 who have had a live birth before age 181 Number of women age 20–24 Have had a live birth Are pregnant with first child Have begun childbearing Have had a live birth before age 15 Area  Urban 30.5 4.5 34.9 2.9 281 27.3 245 Rural 40.6 7.8 48.4 6.2 147 40.4 109 Education None (50.8) (0.7) (51.5) (7.5) 46 42.0 69 Primary 36.9 8.0 44.8 4.6 299 31.7 250 Secondary 15.4 .0 15.4 .0 77 (7.4) 32 Wealth index quintile  Poorest 42.0 10.9 52.9 8.8 84 44.4 73 Second 41.0 8.3 49.3 4.7 79 37.5 83 Middle 47.1 .3 47.4 3.4 90 36.6 67 Fourth 22.6 1.9 24.5 3.3 91 19.8 73 Richest 17.6 7.5 25.1 .0 84 14.2 57 Total 33.9 5.6 39.6 4.0 429 31.3 354 1 MICS indicator 5.2 ( ) Figures that are based on 25–49 unweighted cases MONITORING THE SITUATION OF CHILDREN AND WOMEN 115 MULTIPLE INDICATOR CLUSTER SURVEY 2010116 Table RH.3R presents the trends for early childbearing in Table RH.3R presents the trends for early childbearing in Roma settlements. Overall 4 percent of Roma women have Roma settlements. Overall 4 percent of Roma women have had a live birth by the age of 15 with an obvious difference had a live birth by the age of 15 with an obvious difference between urban (2 percent) and rural areas (8 percent). The between urban (2 percent) and rural areas (8 percent). The percentage of women who have had a live birth before 18 percentage of women who have had a live birth before 18 Table RH.3R: Trends in early childbearing, Roma Settlements, 2010 Percentage of women who have had a live birth, by age 15 and 18, by residence and age group Urban Rural All Percentage of women with a live birth before age 15 Number of women Percentage of women with a live birth before age 18 Number of women Percentage of women with a live birth before age 15 Number of women Percentage of women with a live birth before age 18 Number of women Percentage of women with a live birth before age 15 Number of women Percentage of women with a live birth before age 18 Number of women Age 15–19 2.9 281 na na 6.2 147 na na 4.0 429 na na 20–24 1.9 245 27.3 245 2.2 109 40.4 109 2.0 354 31.3 354 25–29 1.1 253 31.4 253 4.8 109 40.4 109 2.2 363 34.1 363 30–34 2.9 239 34.9 239 17.0 81 50.8 81 6.5 320 38.9 320 35–39 1.7 181 37.6 181 7.8 70 50.7 70 3.4 251 41.3 251 40–44 3.0 118 32.5 118 7.8 75 43.0 75 4.8 193 36.6 193 45–49 2.1 144 37.3 144 13.3 64 58.3 64 5.5 208 43.8 208 Total 2.2 1461 33.0 1180 7.7 657 46.1 509 3.9 2118 37.0 1689 grows to 37 percent with the same pattern of urban vs. grows to 37 percent with the same pattern of urban vs. rural differences. In urban areas 33 percent of women have rural differences. In urban areas 33 percent of women have had a live birth before the age of 18, while it is 46 percent had a live birth before the age of 18, while it is 46 percent in rural areas.in rural areas. MULTIPLE INDICATOR CLUSTER SURVEY 2010116 MONITORING THE SITUATION OF CHILDREN AND WOMEN 117 ContraceptionContraception Appropriate family planning is important to the health of Appropriate family planning is important to the health of women and children by: 1) preventing pregnancies that women and children by: 1) preventing pregnancies that are too early or too late; 2) extending the period between are too early or too late; 2) extending the period between births; and 3) limiting the number of children. Access births; and 3) limiting the number of children. Access by all couples to information and services to prevent by all couples to information and services to prevent pregnancies that are too early, too closely spaced, too late pregnancies that are too early, too closely spaced, too late or too many is critical.or too many is critical. Current use of contraception was reported by 61 percent Current use of contraception was reported by 61 percent of women currently married or in a union (Table RH.4). of women currently married or in a union (Table RH.4). When administering the questionnaire module on When administering the questionnaire module on contraception, different response categories (contraception contraception, different response categories (contraception methods) were read to interviewees before they were asked methods) were read to interviewees before they were asked to respond about which methods they use. The approach to respond about which methods they use. The approach of reading response categories in advance was not used in of reading response categories in advance was not used in MICS3 and this methodological difference could be the MICS3 and this methodological difference could be the cause of the higher recorded rate of contraception use in cause of the higher recorded rate of contraception use in MICS4 than in MICS3. MICS4 than in MICS3. The most popular method noted was the withdrawal The most popular method noted was the withdrawal method which is used by one in three married women in method which is used by one in three married women in Serbia. The next most popular method is the male condom, Serbia. The next most popular method is the male condom, which accounts for 14 percent of married women. Some 8 which accounts for 14 percent of married women. Some 8 percent of women reported use of periodic abstinence, while percent of women reported use of periodic abstinence, while 4 percent use the pill and 3 percent the IUD. Other methods 4 percent use the pill and 3 percent the IUD. Other methods of contraception (male or female sterilization, injectables or of contraception (male or female sterilization, injectables or implants, vaginal methods, or the lactational amenorrhea implants, vaginal methods, or the lactational amenorrhea method (LAM) are used by less than 1 percent of women.method (LAM) are used by less than 1 percent of women. Use of contraceptives is not very different across regions Use of contraceptives is not very different across regions and ranged from 57 percent in Sumadija and Western and ranged from 57 percent in Sumadija and Western Serbia to 67 percent in Vojvodina. Usage in urban and Serbia to 67 percent in Vojvodina. Usage in urban and rural areas is also almost the same. Adolescents are less rural areas is also almost the same. Adolescents are less likely to use contraception than older women. Only about likely to use contraception than older women. Only about 45 percent of married or in-union women aged 15–1945 percent of married or in-union women aged 15–191313 currently use a method of contraception compared to 61 currently use a method of contraception compared to 61 percent of 20–24 year olds and 69 percent of older women percent of 20–24 year olds and 69 percent of older women (35–39 years old).(35–39 years old). Women’s education level is associated with contraceptive Women’s education level is associated with contraceptive prevalence. The percentage of women using any method prevalence. The percentage of women using any method of contraception rises from 53 percent among those with of contraception rises from 53 percent among those with only primary education to 65 percent among women only primary education to 65 percent among women with higher education. Traditional methods are pre-with higher education. Traditional methods are pre- dominant and are used by 39 percent of women while dominant and are used by 39 percent of women while modern methods are used by 22 percent of women. Usage modern methods are used by 22 percent of women. Usage of modern methods increases with women’s education of modern methods increases with women’s education and wealth status. Modern methods are used by only 10 and wealth status. Modern methods are used by only 10 percent of women with primary school education and percent of women with primary school education and 11 percent of the poorest quintile in comparison with 33 11 percent of the poorest quintile in comparison with 33 percent of women with higher education and 31 percent percent of women with higher education and 31 percent from the richest quintile.from the richest quintile. 13 Based on a small number of cases of married women 15–19 years old (25–49 cases). MULTIPLE INDICATOR CLUSTER SURVEY 2010118 Table RH.4: Use of contraception, Serbia, 2010 Percentage of women age 15–49 years currently married or in union who are using (or whose partner is using) a contraceptive method   Not using any method Percent of women (currently Female sterili- zation Male sterili- zation IUD Injectables Implants Pill Male condom Female condom Region Belgrade 41.8 .0 .0 3.0 .0 .0 5.0 13.7 .3 Vojvodina 32.7 .6 .0 5.7 .0 .0 5.2 16.1 .2 Sumadija and Western Serbia 43.5 .0 .0 3.1 .0 .0 2.6 9.3 .0 Southern and Eastern Serbia 39.1 .0 .0 .9 .0 .0 5.1 15.4 .0 Area  Urban 39.6 .2 .0 3.3 .0 .0 5.4 14.9 .1 Rural 38.7 .2 .0 3.0 .0 .0 3.2 12.0 .1 Age  15–19 (55.2) (0.0) (0.0) (0.0) (0.0) (0.0) (0.0) (10.8) (0.0) 20–24 38.6 .0 .0 .6 .0 .0 5.7 15.4 .1 25–29 40.4 .0 .0 .9 .0 .0 4.6 19.0 .1 30–34 33.6 .1 .0 1.4 .0 .0 4.7 19.1 .2 35–39 31.4 .3 .0 3.4 .0 .0 5.5 16.3 .1 40–44 32.7 .2 .0 7.3 .0 .0 4.8 11.0 .0 45–49 53.9 .3 .0 3.6 .0 .0 2.6 4.5 .2 Number of living children  0 70.8 .0 .0 .1 .0 .0 5.5 12.5 .0 1 42.6 .0 .0 1.4 .0 .0 4.1 16.8 .0 2 34.1 .2 .0 4.1 .0 .0 4.9 13.1 .1 3 33.3 .5 .0 2.6 .1 .0 2.8 11.3 .1 4+ 43.8 .9 .0 9.7 .0 .0 2.0 5.7 .5 Education  Primary 46.7 .1 .0 1.6 .0 .0 3.0 5.3 .1 Secondary 38.0 .3 .0 3.3 .0 .0 3.9 12.9 .2 Higher 35.5 .0 .0 4.0 .0 .0 7.0 21.9 .0 Wealth index quintile  Poorest 42.5 .1 .0 1.4 .0 .0 2.0 7.0 .1 Second 42.2 .4 .0 1.6 .0 .0 3.6 11.4 .0 Middle 35.5 .3 .0 5.1 .0 .0 4.1 10.6 .1 Fourth 37.8 .0 .0 3.7 .0 .0 4.6 16.3 .1 Richest 38.4 .1 .0 3.7 .0 .0 6.9 19.9 .2 Total 39.2 .2 .0 3.2 .0 .0 4.4 13.5 .1 1 MICS indicator 5.3; MDG indicator 5.3 ( ) Figures that are based on 25–49 unweighted cases MONITORING THE SITUATION OF CHILDREN AND WOMEN 119 married or in union) who are using: Number of women currently married or in union Diaphragm/ Foam/Jelly LAM Periodic abstinence Withdrawal Emergency contraception Other Any modern method Any tradi- tional method Any method1 .0 .5 3.4 32.2 .0 .0 22.1 36.1 58.2 603 .0 1.1 13.4 24.1 .0 .7 28.0 39.4 67.3 887 .3 1.0 10.4 29.5 .0 .2 15.3 41.2 56.5 969 .0 .5 3.2 35.7 .0 .1 21.4 39.5 60.9 946 .1 .7 8.3 27.1 .0 .2 24.0 36.4 60.4 1852 .1 .9 7.5 34.1 .0 .3 18.5 42.8 61.3 1552 (0.0) (8.4) (7.3) (18.3) .0 (0.0) (10.8) (34.0) (44.8) 35 .0 3.8 4.8 30.9 .0 .1 21.8 39.6 61.4 208 .1 1.4 6.6 26.8 .0 .1 24.7 34.9 59.6 523 .0 1.1 6.8 33.2 .0 .0 25.4 41.0 66.4 613 .0 .4 10.7 31.7 .0 .1 25.7 42.9 68.6 673 .0 .1 10.0 33.4 .0 .5 23.3 44.0 67.3 583 .3 .0 6.7 27.1 .0 .7 11.5 34.6 46.1 769 .0 .0 1.8 9.3 .0 .0 18.1 11.1 29.2 249 .1 1.1 5.5 28.3 .0 .1 22.4 35.0 57.4 865 .0 .7 9.4 32.9 .0 .5 22.4 43.6 65.9 1833 .7 .8 11.1 36.8 .0 .0 18.0 48.7 66.7 347 .0 2.1 5.9 29.5 .0 .0 18.7 37.5 56.2 111 .1 1.0 4.8 36.9 .0 .4 10.2 43.1 53.3 569 .1 .8 8.8 31.5 .0 .2 20.7 41.3 62.0 2067 .0 .7 8.3 22.3 .0 .3 32.9 31.6 64.5 745 .0 1.6 6.3 39.0 .0 .2 10.5 47.0 57.5 522 .1 .6 7.5 32.0 .0 .5 17.0 40.7 57.8 719 .0 .8 10.5 32.8 .0 .1 20.2 44.2 64.5 666 .0 .7 8.4 28.2 .0 .1 24.7 37.4 62.2 727 .3 .6 6.8 22.7 .0 .4 31.1 30.5 61.6 770 .1 .8 7.9 30.3 .0 .3 21.5 39.3 60.8 3405 MULTIPLE INDICATOR CLUSTER SURVEY 2010120 Contraception in Roma SettlementsContraception in Roma Settlements Current use of contraception in Roma settlements was Current use of contraception in Roma settlements was reported by 64 percent of women currently married or reported by 64 percent of women currently married or in a union (Table RH.4R). The most popular method in a union (Table RH.4R). The most popular method is the withdrawal method which is used by half of the is the withdrawal method which is used by half of the married women in Roma settlements. The next most married women in Roma settlements. The next most Table RH.4R: Use of contraception, Roma Settlements, 2010 Percentage of women age 15–49 years currently married or in union who are using (or whose partner is using) a contraceptive method Not usingany method Percent of women (currently Female sterilization Male sterilization IUD Injectables Implants Pill Male condom Female condom Area  Urban 39.3 1.1 .0 1.3 .0 .0 .3 3.8 .0 Rural 30.6 .2 .0 .2 .0 .0 1.9 2.1 .0 Age  15–19 59.1 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .3 .1 .0 20–24 40.8 .0 .0 .1 .0 .0 1.4 4.2 .0 25–29 32.2 2.2 .0 .4 .0 .0 .9 5.1 .1 30–34 22.4 1.1 .0 1.6 .0 .0 1.9 4.6 .0 35–39 22.3 .9 .0 2.6 .0 .0 .5 2.3 .0 40–44 38.5 .5 .0 .3 .0 .0 .0 1.8 .0 45–49 50.7 .6 .0 1.6 .0 .0 .0 2.4 .0 Number of living children 0 94.2 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 2.1 .0 1 43.0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .5 2.8 .0 2 30.6 .1 .0 .3 .0 .0 .8 3.2 .0 3 29.3 1.5 .0 2.8 .0 .0 .2 4.5 .0 4+ 30.4 2.4 .0 1.3 .0 .0 2.1 2.8 .0 Education  None 47.5 .2 .0 1.7 .0 .0 1.2 .7 .0 Primary 35.3 .9 .0 .6 .0 .0 .9 3.0 .0 Secondary 29.6 1.5 .0 1.8 .0 .0 .2 7.3 .0 Wealth index quintile  Poorest 43.7 .1 .0 .0 .0 .0 1.9 2.6 .1 Second 32.8 2.6 .0 .4 .0 .0 1.5 .6 .0 Middle 40.3 .3 .0 1.3 .0 .0 .5 2.8 .0 Fourth 36.4 .1 .0 .7 .0 .0 .2 3.9 .0 Richest 30.4 .9 .0 2.2 .0 .0 .2 6.1 .0 Total 36.5 .8 .0 .9 .0 .0 .8 3.3 .0 1 MICS indicator 5.3; MDG indicator 5.3 popular method is lactational amenorrhoea method, popular method is lactational amenorrhoea method, which accounts for seven percent of married women. which accounts for seven percent of married women. Only 3 percent of women reported use of the male Only 3 percent of women reported use of the male condom while use of all other methods is either not condom while use of all other methods is either not present or does not exceed 1 percent.present or does not exceed 1 percent. MULTIPLE INDICATOR CLUSTER SURVEY 2010120 MONITORING THE SITUATION OF CHILDREN AND WOMEN 121 married or in union) who are using: Number of women currently married or in union Diaphragm/ Foam/Jelly LAM Periodic abstinence Withdrawal Emergency contraception Other Any modern method Any traditional method Any method1 .0 5.8 .1 47.9 .0 .3 6.5 54.1 60.7 1102 .1 10.1 .1 54.7 .0 .0 4.5 64.9 69.4 520 .0 19.3 .1 21.1 .0 .0 .4 40.5 40.9 190 .0 17.2 .0 36.3 .0 .0 5.7 53.5 59.2 282 .0 5.9 .1 53.2 .0 .0 8.6 59.1 67.8 304 .1 2.6 .0 65.5 .0 .0 9.4 68.2 77.6 276 .0 2.9 .0 68.6 .0 .0 6.3 71.5 77.7 224 .0 .0 .0 57.5 .0 1.3 2.6 58.9 61.5 167 .0 .0 .6 43.7 .0 .3 4.6 44.6 49.3 180 .0 .0 .0 3.6 .0 .0 2.1 3.6 5.8 98 .0 12.2 .0 41.5 .0 .0 3.4 53.7 57.0 312 .0 7.4 .2 57.2 .0 .1 4.4 65.0 69.4 547 .1 5.9 .1 55.0 .0 .6 9.1 61.6 70.7 345 .0 5.6 .0 55.4 .0 .0 8.5 61.0 69.6 320 .0 7.6 .1 41.0 .0 .0 3.8 48.8 52.5 294 .0 7.6 .0 51.4 .0 .3 5.4 59.3 64.7 1113 .0 4.6 .6 54.6 .0 .0 10.7 59.8 70.4 204 .1 9.4 .0 42.1 .0 .0 4.8 51.5 56.3 292 .0 8.6 .0 53.5 .0 .0 5.1 62.1 67.2 321 .0 7.9 .1 46.0 .0 .7 5.0 54.7 59.7 319 .0 7.1 .1 51.5 .0 .0 4.9 58.7 63.6 354 .0 3.3 .3 56.3 .0 .2 9.5 60.1 69.6 337 .0 7.2 .1 50.1 .0 .2 5.9 57.6 63.5 1622 The use of contraceptives is slightly higher (69 percent) The use of contraceptives is slightly higher (69 percent) in rural than in urban areas (61 percent). Adolescents in rural than in urban areas (61 percent). Adolescents are less likely to use contraception than older women are less likely to use contraception than older women from Roma settlements. Only 41 percent of married or from Roma settlements. Only 41 percent of married or in-union women aged 15–19 currently use a method of in-union women aged 15–19 currently use a method of contraception compared to 59 percent of 20–24 year olds contraception compared to 59 percent of 20–24 year olds and 78 percent of older women (35–39 years old).and 78 percent of older women (35–39 years old). Women’s education level is directly associated with Women’s education level is directly associated with contraceptive prevalence. The percentage of women from contraceptive prevalence. The percentage of women from Roma settlements using any method of contraception Roma settlements using any method of contraception rises from 53 percent among those with no education rises from 53 percent among those with no education to 70 percent among women with secondary education. to 70 percent among women with secondary education. Traditional methods are pre-dominant in Roma Traditional methods are pre-dominant in Roma settlements and are used by 58 percent of women with settlements and are used by 58 percent of women with even higher prevalence in rural areas (65 percent). Modern even higher prevalence in rural areas (65 percent). Modern methods are used by only 6 percent of women with a methods are used by only 6 percent of women with a slightly higher percentage of users among women with slightly higher percentage of users among women with secondary education (11 percent) and women from the secondary education (11 percent) and women from the richest quintile (10 percent).richest quintile (10 percent). MONITORING THE SITUATION OF CHILDREN AND WOMEN 121 MULTIPLE INDICATOR CLUSTER SURVEY 2010122 Unmet NeedUnmet Need Unmet need for contraception refers to fecund women who Unmet need for contraception refers to fecund women who are not using any method of contraception, but who wish are not using any method of contraception, but who wish to postpone the next birth (spacing) or who wish to stop to postpone the next birth (spacing) or who wish to stop childbearing altogether (limiting). Unmet need is identified childbearing altogether (limiting). Unmet need is identified in MICS by using a set of questions eliciting current in MICS by using a set of questions eliciting current behaviours and preferences pertaining to contraceptive behaviours and preferences pertaining to contraceptive use, fecundity, and fertility preferences. Table RH.5 shows use, fecundity, and fertility preferences. Table RH.5 shows the results of the survey on contraception, unmet need, the results of the survey on contraception, unmet need, and the demand for contraception satisfied. and the demand for contraception satisfied. Unmet need for spacing is defined as the percentage of Unmet need for spacing is defined as the percentage of women who are not using a method of contraception ANDwomen who are not using a method of contraception AND  are not pregnant and not postpartum amenorrheic are not pregnant and not postpartum amenorrheic1414 and are fecundand are fecund1515 and say they want to wait two or more and say they want to wait two or more years for their next birth ORyears for their next birth OR  are not pregnant and not postpartum amenorrheic are not pregnant and not postpartum amenorrheic and are fecund and unsure whether they want another and are fecund and unsure whether they want another child ORchild OR  are pregnant and say that pregnancy was mistimed: are pregnant and say that pregnancy was mistimed: would have wanted to wait ORwould have wanted to wait OR  are postpartum amenorrheic and say that the birth are postpartum amenorrheic and say that the birth was mistimed: would have wanted to wait.was mistimed: would have wanted to wait. Unmet need for limiting is defined as the percentage of Unmet need for limiting is defined as the percentage of women who are not using a method of contraception ANDwomen who are not using a method of contraception AND  are not pregnant and not postpartum amenorrheic and are not pregnant and not postpartum amenorrheic and are fecund and say they do not want any more children are fecund and say they do not want any more children OROR  are pregnant and say they didn't want to have a child are pregnant and say they didn't want to have a child OROR  are postpartum amenorrheic and say that they didn't are postpartum amenorrheic and say that they didn't want the birthwant the birth 14 A women is postpartum amenorrheic if she had a birth in the last two years and is not currently pregnant and her menstrual period has not returned since the birth of the last child. 15 A women is considered infecund if she is neither pregnant nor postpartum amenorrheic, and (1a) she has not had menstruation for at least six months, or (1b) never menstruated, or (1c) her last menstruation occurred before her last birth, or (1d) is in menopause/has had hysterectomy OR (2) she declares that she has had a hysterectomy, or that she has never menstruated or that she is menopausal, or that she has been trying to get pregnant for 2 or more years without result in response to questions on why she thinks she is not physically able to get pregnant at the time of the survey OR (3) she declares she cannot get pregnant when asked about her desire for future births OR (4) she has not had a birth in the preceding 5 years, is currently not using contraception and is currently married and was continuously married during the last 5 years preceding the survey. Total unmet need for contraception is simply the sum of Total unmet need for contraception is simply the sum of unmet need for spacing and unmet need for limiting. Table unmet need for spacing and unmet need for limiting. Table RH.5 shows that 7 percent of women in Serbia have a total RH.5 shows that 7 percent of women in Serbia have a total unmet need for contraception. The total unmet need is unmet need for contraception. The total unmet need is higher among younger women aged 20–24 (12 percent) higher among younger women aged 20–24 (12 percent) and 25–29 year olds (13 percent). and 25–29 year olds (13 percent). Met need for limiting includes women who are using a Met need for limiting includes women who are using a contraceptive method and who want no more children, are contraceptive method and who want no more children, are using male or female sterilization or declare themselves using male or female sterilization or declare themselves as infecund. Met need for spacing includes women who as infecund. Met need for spacing includes women who are using a contraceptive method and who want to have are using a contraceptive method and who want to have another child or are undecided whether to have another another child or are undecided whether to have another child. The met need for spacing added to the met need for child. The met need for spacing added to the met need for limiting gives the total met need for contraception. Some limiting gives the total met need for contraception. Some 18 percent of all women have a met need for spacing and 18 percent of all women have a met need for spacing and 43 percent have a met need for limiting. 43 percent have a met need for limiting. Unmet need for spacing is recorded among 3 percent of Unmet need for spacing is recorded among 3 percent of women but it is higher among women aged 20–24 years women but it is higher among women aged 20–24 years old (11 percent) and 25–29 years old (8 percent). One old (11 percent) and 25–29 years old (8 percent). One in 25 women or 4 percent of women have unmet need in 25 women or 4 percent of women have unmet need for limiting, with no major differences among different for limiting, with no major differences among different background characteristics. background characteristics. Using information on contraception and unmet need, Using information on contraception and unmet need, the percentage of satisfied demand for contraception can the percentage of satisfied demand for contraception can also be estimated from the MICS data. The percentage of also be estimated from the MICS data. The percentage of satisfied demand is defined as the proportion of women satisfied demand is defined as the proportion of women currently married or in a marital union who are currently currently married or in a marital union who are currently using contraception, of the total demand for contraception. using contraception, of the total demand for contraception. The total demand for contraception includes women who The total demand for contraception includes women who currently have an unmet need (for spacing or limiting), currently have an unmet need (for spacing or limiting), plus those who are currently using contraception. In total, plus those who are currently using contraception. In total, 90 percent of women in Serbia have their demand for 90 percent of women in Serbia have their demand for contraception satisfied, with lower values for women aged contraception satisfied, with lower values for women aged 20–24 years old (84 percent) and 25–29 years old (82 percent). 20–24 years old (84 percent) and 25–29 years old (82 percent). MONITORING THE SITUATION OF CHILDREN AND WOMEN 123 Table RH.5: Unmet need for contraception, Serbia, 2010 Percentage of women age 15–49 years currently married or in union with an unmet need for family planning and percentage of demand for contraception satisfied Met need for contraception Unmet need for contraception Number of women currently married or in union Percentage of demand for contraception satisfied Number of women currently married or in union with need for contraception For spacing For limiting Total For spacing For limiting Total 1 Region Belgrade 21.9 36.3 58.2 3.3 4.0 7.3 603 88.9 395 Vojvodina 20.6 46.8 67.3 2.4 2.4 4.8 887 93.3 640 Sumadija and Western Serbia 14.5 42.0 56.5 3.6 4.2 7.9 969 87.8 624 Southern and Eastern Serbia 15.8 45.1 60.9 3.0 3.5 6.5 946 90.4 637 Area  Urban 18.9 41.6 60.4 2.6 2.9 5.5 1852 91.7 1221 Rural 16.4 44.9 61.3 3.7 4.2 7.9 1552 88.5 1075 Age  15–19 (42.8) (2.0) (44.8) (7.2) (0.0) (7.2) 35 (*) 18 20–24 50.2 11.2 61.4 10.6 1.3 11.9 208 83.8 153 25–29 39.2 20.4 59.6 7.9 5.5 13.4 523 81.6 382 30–34 26.6 39.8 66.4 4.7 5.1 9.8 613 87.2 467 35–39 13.7 54.9 68.6 1.5 5.4 6.8 673 90.9 508 40–44 4.1 63.2 67.3 .1 2.3 2.4 583 96.5 407 45–49 .1 46.0 46.1 .0 .9 .9 769 98.1 361 Education  Primary 8.5 44.8 53.3 2.6 4.1 6.7 569 88.8 341 Secondary 17.0 45.0 62.0 3.3 3.5 6.7 2067 90.2 1421 Higher 27.3 37.2 64.5 2.9 2.7 5.7 745 91.9 523 Wealth index quintiles Poorest 14.5 43.0 57.5 3.5 5.0 8.5 522 87.1 344 Second 16.4 41.4 57.8 2.8 4.6 7.4 719 88.6 469 Middle 16.1 48.4 64.5 3.5 2.8 6.3 666 91.1 472 Fourth 19.1 43.0 62.2 2.2 2.8 5.1 727 92.5 489 Richest 21.3 40.2 61.6 3.5 2.7 6.2 770 90.9 521 Total 17.7 43.1 60.8 3.1 3.5 6.6 3405 90.2 2296 1 MICS indicator 5.4; MDG indicator 5.6 ( ) Figures that are based on 25–49 unweighted cases (*) Figures that are based on less than 25 unweighted cases MULTIPLE INDICATOR CLUSTER SURVEY 2010124 Unmet Need in Roma SettlementsUnmet Need in Roma Settlements Total unmet need for contraception is simply the Total unmet need for contraception is simply the sum of unmet need for spacing and unmet need for sum of unmet need for spacing and unmet need for limiting. Table RH.5R shows that 10 percent of women limiting. Table RH.5R shows that 10 percent of women in Roma settlements in Serbia have an unmet need for in Roma settlements in Serbia have an unmet need for Table RH.5R: Unmet need for contraception, Roma Settlements, 2010 Percentage of women age 15–49 years currently married or in union with an unmet need for family planning and percentage of demand for contraception satisfied   Met need for contraception Unmet need for contraception Number of women currently married or in union Percentage of demand for contraception satisfied Number of women currently married or in union with need for contraception For spacing For limiting Total For spacing For limiting Total 1 Area  Urban 16.0 44.6 60.7 4.1 8.8 12.9 1102 82.5 810 Rural 13.5 55.9 69.4 1.5 2.9 4.4 520 94.0 384 Age  15–19 31.9 9.0 40.9 4.6 2.4 7.0 190 85.5 91 20–24 27.2 32.0 59.2 8.7 6.0 14.7 282 80.1 208 25–29 20.0 47.7 67.8 3.7 14.0 17.7 304 79.3 259 30–34 11.8 65.8 77.6 2.6 6.3 8.8 276 89.8 238 35–39 5.0 72.7 77.7 .2 6.9 7.1 224 91.7 190 40–44 .0 61.5 61.5 .4 4.7 5.1 167 92.4 111 45–49 2.7 46.5 49.3 .0 4.5 4.5 180 91.6 97 Education  None 5.6 46.9 52.5 4.7 9.6 14.3 294 78.6 196 Primary 14.7 50.0 64.7 3.1 6.8 9.8 1113 86.8 829 Secondary 30.1 40.3 70.4 2.2 4.5 6.7 204 91.3 157 Wealth index quintiles  Poorest 8.8 47.4 56.3 6.4 9.2 15.6 292 78.3 210 Second 15.0 52.2 67.2 1.5 8.5 10.0 321 87.0 248 Middle 11.9 47.8 59.7 3.8 4.5 8.3 319 87.8 217 Fourth 16.3 47.3 63.6 1.4 6.7 8.1 354 88.7 254 Richest 22.9 46.7 69.6 3.4 6.2 9.6 337 87.9 267 Total 15.2 48.3 63.5 3.2 6.9 10.2 1622 86.2 1195 1 MICS indicator 5.4; MDG indicator 5.6 contraception. The total unmet need is higher among contraception. The total unmet need is higher among women aged 20–24 (15 percent) and aged 25–29 (18 women aged 20–24 (15 percent) and aged 25–29 (18 percent). There is also a difference between rural and percent). There is also a difference between rural and urban areas.urban areas. MULTIPLE INDICATOR CLUSTER SURVEY 2010124 MONITORING THE SITUATION OF CHILDREN AND WOMEN 125 Met need for limiting includes women who are using a Met need for limiting includes women who are using a contraceptive method and who want no more children, contraceptive method and who want no more children, are using male or female sterilization or declare are using male or female sterilization or declare themselves as infecund. Met need for spacing includes themselves as infecund. Met need for spacing includes women who are using a contraceptive method and who women who are using a contraceptive method and who want to have another child or are undecided whether want to have another child or are undecided whether or not to have another child. The total of met need or not to have another child. The total of met need for spacing and met need for limiting added together for spacing and met need for limiting added together constitute the total met need for contraception. Some constitute the total met need for contraception. Some 15 percent of all women from Roma settlements have 15 percent of all women from Roma settlements have a met need for spacing and 48 percent have a met need a met need for spacing and 48 percent have a met need for limiting. Unmet need for spacing is recorded among for limiting. Unmet need for spacing is recorded among 3 percent of women but it is higher among women 3 percent of women but it is higher among women aged 20–24 years old (9 percent). One of 14 women aged 20–24 years old (9 percent). One of 14 women or 7 percent have unmet need for limiting, increasing or 7 percent have unmet need for limiting, increasing to 14 percent in the age group of 25–29 years old to 14 percent in the age group of 25–29 years old women. Women without primary education and from women. Women without primary education and from the poorest quintile have increased unmet need for the poorest quintile have increased unmet need for contraception (14 and 16 percent respectively).contraception (14 and 16 percent respectively). Using information on contraception and unmet need, Using information on contraception and unmet need, the percentage of satisfied demand for contraception can the percentage of satisfied demand for contraception can also be estimated from the MICS data. The percentage also be estimated from the MICS data. The percentage of demand satisfied is defined as the proportion of of demand satisfied is defined as the proportion of women currently married or in a marital union who women currently married or in a marital union who are currently using contraception, of the total demand are currently using contraception, of the total demand for contraception. The total demand for contraception for contraception. The total demand for contraception includes women who currently have an unmet need includes women who currently have an unmet need (for spacing or limiting), plus those who are currently (for spacing or limiting), plus those who are currently using contraception. The majority of women from Roma using contraception. The majority of women from Roma settlements in Serbia (86 percent) have their demand for settlements in Serbia (86 percent) have their demand for contraception satisfied. contraception satisfied. MONITORING THE SITUATION OF CHILDREN AND WOMEN 125 MULTIPLE INDICATOR CLUSTER SURVEY 2010126 Antenatal CareAntenatal Care The antenatal period presents important opportunities The antenatal period presents important opportunities for reaching pregnant women with a number of for reaching pregnant women with a number of interventions that may be vital to their health and well-interventions that may be vital to their health and well- being, and that of their infants. Better understanding of being, and that of their infants. Better understanding of foetal growth and development and its relationship to the foetal growth and development and its relationship to the mother’s health has resulted in increased attention to the mother’s health has resulted in increased attention to the potential of antenatal care as an intervention to improve potential of antenatal care as an intervention to improve both maternal and newborn health. For example, if the both maternal and newborn health. For example, if the antenatal period is used to inform women and families antenatal period is used to inform women and families about the danger signs and symptoms, and about the about the danger signs and symptoms, and about the risks of labour and delivery, it may provide a route for risks of labour and delivery, it may provide a route for ensuring that pregnant women do, in practice, deliver ensuring that pregnant women do, in practice, deliver with the assistance of a skilled health care provider. The with the assistance of a skilled health care provider. The antenatal period also provides an opportunity to supply antenatal period also provides an opportunity to supply information on birth spacing, which is recognized as an information on birth spacing, which is recognized as an important factor in improving infant survival. Adverse important factor in improving infant survival. Adverse outcomes such as low birth weight can be reduced outcomes such as low birth weight can be reduced through a combination of interventions to improve through a combination of interventions to improve women’s nutritional status and prevent infections during women’s nutritional status and prevent infections during pregnancy. More recently, the potential of the antenatal pregnancy. More recently, the potential of the antenatal period as an entry point for HIV prevention and care, in period as an entry point for HIV prevention and care, in particular for the prevention of HIV transmission from particular for the prevention of HIV transmission from mother to child, has led to renewed interest in access to, mother to child, has led to renewed interest in access to, and use of, antenatal services.and use of, antenatal services. Table RH.6: Antenatal care coverage, Serbia, 2010 Percent distribution of women age 15–49 who gave birth in the two years preceding the survey by type of personnel providing antenatal care   Person providing antenatal care No antenatal care received Total Any skilled personnel1 Number of women who gave birth in the preceding two yearsMedical doctor Nurse/ Midwife Region  Belgrade 99.2 .4 .4 100.0 99.6 91 Vojvodina 99.8 .0 .2 100.0 99.8 163 Sumadija and Western Serbia 97.1 .0 2.9 100.0 97.1 144 Southern and Eastern Serbia 99.6 .0 .4 100.0 99.6 146 Area  Urban 99.6 .1 .3 100.0 99.7 281 Rural 98.2 .0 1.8 100.0 98.2 262 Mother’s age at birth  Less than 20 90.7 .0 9.3 100.0 90.7 28 20–34 99.3 .1 .6 100.0 99.4 442 35–49 100.0 .0 .0 100.0 100.0 59 Education  Primary 97.8 .0 2.2 100.0 97.8 79 Secondary 99.0 .1 .8 100.0 99.2 307 Higher 100.0 .0 .0 100.0 100.0 148 Wealth index quintiles  Poorest 95.4 .0 4.6 100.0 95.4 112 Second 100.0 .0 .0 100.0 100.0 97 Middle 99.6 .4 .0 100.0 100.0 87 Fourth 100.0 .0 .0 100.0 100.0 106 Richest 99.8 .0 .2 100.0 99.8 141 Total 98.9 .1 1.0 100.0 99.0 543 1 MICS indicator 5.5a; MDG indicator 5.5 MONITORING THE SITUATION OF CHILDREN AND WOMEN 127 WHO recommends a minimum of four antenatal visits WHO recommends a minimum of four antenatal visits based on a review of the effectiveness of different models based on a review of the effectiveness of different models of antenatal care. WHO guidelines are specific on the of antenatal care. WHO guidelines are specific on the content of antenatal care visits, which include:content of antenatal care visits, which include:  Blood pressure measurement Blood pressure measurement  Urine testing for bacteria and proteinuria Urine testing for bacteria and proteinuria  Blood testing to detect syphilis and severe anaemia Blood testing to detect syphilis and severe anaemia  Weight/height measurement (optional) Weight/height measurement (optional) The type of personnel providing antenatal care to those The type of personnel providing antenatal care to those women aged 15–49 years who gave birth in the preceding women aged 15–49 years who gave birth in the preceding two years is presented in Table RH.6. Coverage of antenatal two years is presented in Table RH.6. Coverage of antenatal care (by a doctor, nurse, or midwife) is high in Serbia with care (by a doctor, nurse, or midwife) is high in Serbia with 99 percent of women receiving antenatal care from skilled 99 percent of women receiving antenatal care from skilled personnel at least once during their pregnancy. The lowest, personnel at least once during their pregnancy. The lowest, but still high, levels of antenatal care are found among but still high, levels of antenatal care are found among women from the poorest quintile (95 percent), and among women from the poorest quintile (95 percent), and among those women that were 20 years or younger at the time those women that were 20 years or younger at the time of their child’s birth (91 percent). There are no variations of their child’s birth (91 percent). There are no variations observed among regions or other background characteristics.observed among regions or other background characteristics. Table RH.7: Number of antenatal care visits, Serbia, 2010 Percent distribution of women who had a live birth during the two years preceding the survey by number of antenatal care visits by any provider Percent distribution of women who had: Missing/DK Total Number of women who had a live birth in the preceding two years No antenetal care visits One visit Two visits Three visits 4 or more visits1 Region Belgrade .4 .0 .8 .0 96.0 2.8 100.0 91 Vojvodina .2 .2 .4 2.2 92.7 4.3 100.0 163 Sumadija and Western Serbia 2.9 .6 2.1 2.1 91.5 .8 100.0 144 Southern and Eastern Serbia .4 .0 .6 1.1 97.2 .7 100.0 146 Area  Urban .3 .3 .6 1.4 94.3 3.2 100.0 281 Rural 1.8 .1 1.4 1.6 94.0 1.1 100.0 262 Mother’s age at birth  Less than 20 9.3 .0 .0 3.8 82.6 4.3 100.0 28 20–34 .6 .3 .8 1.0 95.2 2.1 100.0 456 35–49 .0 .0 3.0 3.9 91.9 1.2 100.0 59 Education  Primary 2.2 .4 2.9 3.6 87.8 3.0 100.0 79 Secondary .8 .1 .9 1.4 93.9 2.8 100.0 307 Higher .0 .4 .0 .4 98.8 .5 100.0 148 Wealth index quintile  Poorest 4.6 .0 2.6 4.8 85.6 2.4 100.0 112 Second .0 .3 1.6 2.2 94.4 1.5 100.0 97 Middle .0 .4 .0 .0 98.4 1.2 100.0 87 Fourth .0 .0 .5 .0 97.3 2.2 100.0 106 Richest .2 .4 .2 .5 95.8 3.0 100.0 141 Total 1.0 .2 1.0 1.5 94.2 2.2 100.0 543 1 MICS indicator 5.5b; MDG indicator 5.5 MULTIPLE INDICATOR CLUSTER SURVEY 2010128 UNICEF and WHO recommend a minimum of at least UNICEF and WHO recommend a minimum of at least four antenatal care visits during pregnancy. Table RH.7 four antenatal care visits during pregnancy. Table RH.7 shows the number of antenatal care (ANC) visits during shows the number of antenatal care (ANC) visits during the last pregnancy over the two years preceding the survey, the last pregnancy over the two years preceding the survey, regardless of provider, by selected characteristics. A high regardless of provider, by selected characteristics. A high percentage (97 percent) of mothers received antenatal percentage (97 percent) of mothers received antenatal care more than once, and 94 percent of mothers received care more than once, and 94 percent of mothers received antenatal care at least four times. Mothers from the antenatal care at least four times. Mothers from the poorest quintile and those with primary education are less poorest quintile and those with primary education are less likely than more advantaged mothers to receive ANC four likely than more advantaged mothers to receive ANC four or more times. For example, 86 percent of women living in or more times. For example, 86 percent of women living in Table RH.8: Content of antenatal care, Serbia, 2010 Percentage of women age 15–49 years who had their blood pressure measured, urine sample taken, and blood sample taken as part of antenatal care   Percentage of pregnant women who had: Number of women who had a live birth in the preceding two years Blood pressure measured Urine sample taken Blood sample taken Blood pressure measured, urine and blood sample taken1 Region  Belgrade 99.3 99.6 99.6 99.3 91 Vojvodina 99.3 98.8 99.6 98.5 163 Sumadija and Western Serbia 96.0 96.0 96.5 94.7 144 Southern and Eastern Serbia 99.1 99.6 99.6 99.1 146 Area  Urban 99.0 99.2 99.4 98.4 281 Rural 97.8 97.5 98.1 97.2 262 Mother’s age at birth  Less than 20 90.7 90.7 90.7 90.7 28 20–34 98.8 99.1 99.2 98.5 456 35–49 98.7 96.9 99.4 96.2 59 Education  Primary 96.5 95.4 97.3 94.6 79 Secondary 98.6 98.7 98.8 98.1 307 Higher 99.5 100.0 100.0 99.5 148 Wealth index quintile  Poorest 94.5 93.7 95.0 93.2 112 Second 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 97 Middle 98.5 100.0 99.2 98.5 87 Fourth 99.7 99.8 99.8 99.3 106 Richest 99.3 98.9 99.8 98.4 141 Total 98.4 98.4 98.8 97.8 543 1 MICS indicator 5.6 the poorest quintile and 83 percent of women 20 years old the poorest quintile and 83 percent of women 20 years old or younger at the time of the birth reported four or more or younger at the time of the birth reported four or more antenatal care visits compared with 96 percent among antenatal care visits compared with 96 percent among those living in households in the richest quintile. those living in households in the richest quintile. The types of services pregnant women received are shown The types of services pregnant women received are shown in table RH.8. Among those women who have given birth in table RH.8. Among those women who have given birth to a child during the two years preceding the survey, 99 to a child during the two years preceding the survey, 99 percent reported that a blood sample was taken during percent reported that a blood sample was taken during antenatal care visits, 98 percent reported that their blood antenatal care visits, 98 percent reported that their blood pressure was checked and that a urine specimen was taken. pressure was checked and that a urine specimen was taken. MONITORING THE SITUATION OF CHILDREN AND WOMEN 129 Antenatal Care in Roma SettlementsAntenatal Care in Roma Settlements The type of personnel providing antenatal care to Roma The type of personnel providing antenatal care to Roma women aged 15–49 years who gave birth in the previous women aged 15–49 years who gave birth in the previous two years is presented in Table RH.6R. Coverage of two years is presented in Table RH.6R. Coverage of antenatal care (by a doctor, nurse, or midwife) is high in antenatal care (by a doctor, nurse, or midwife) is high in Roma settlements in Serbia with 94 percent of women Roma settlements in Serbia with 94 percent of women receiving antenatal care from skilled personnel at least receiving antenatal care from skilled personnel at least once during the pregnancy. The lowest, but still high, once during the pregnancy. The lowest, but still high, level of antenatal care (86 percent) is found among women level of antenatal care (86 percent) is found among women without education and is 89 percent among women from without education and is 89 percent among women from the poorest quintile. the poorest quintile. Table RH.6R: Antenatal care coverage, Roma Settlements, 2010 Percent distribution of women age 15–49 who gave birth in the two years preceding the survey by type of personnel providing antenatal care   Person providing antenatal care No antenatal care received Total Any skilled personnel1 Number of women who gave birth in the preceding two yearsMedical doctor Nurse/Midwife Area  Urban 94.0 .4 5.5 100.0 94.5 294 Rural 93.9 .9 5.3 100.0 94.7 146 Mother’s age at birth  Less than 20 94.3 1.0 4.7 100.0 95.3 154 20–34 93.7 .4 5.9 100.0 94.1 262 35–49 (*) (*) (*) 100.0 (*) 21 Education  None 85.8 .4 13.8 100.0 86.2 89 Primary 95.5 .7 3.7 100.0 96.3 291 Secondary 98.5 .0 1.5 100.0 98.5 59 Wealth index quintiles  Poorest 88.4 .8 10.8 100.0 89.2 106 Second 95.5 1.2 3.3 100.0 96.7 99 Middle 89.0 .0 11.0 100.0 89.0 80 Fourth 99.0 .5 .6 100.0 99.4 81 Richest 99.7 .3 .0 100.0 100.0 75 Total 94.0 .6 5.5 100.0 94.5 440 1 MICS indicator 5.5a; MDG indicator 5.5 (*) Figures that are based on less than 25 unweighted cases UNICEF and WHO recommend a minimum of at least four UNICEF and WHO recommend a minimum of at least four antenatal care visits during pregnancy. Table RH.7R shows antenatal care visits during pregnancy. Table RH.7R shows the number of antenatal care visits during the last pregnancy the number of antenatal care visits during the last pregnancy during the two years preceding the survey (regardless of during the two years preceding the survey (regardless of provider) by selected characteristics. Some 85 percent of provider) by selected characteristics. Some 85 percent of mothers from Roma settlements received antenatal care more mothers from Roma settlements received antenatal care more than once and 72 percent received antenatal care at least four than once and 72 percent received antenatal care at least four times. Mothers from households with low living standard and times. Mothers from households with low living standard and those with no education are less likely than more advantaged those with no education are less likely than more advantaged mothers to receive ANC four or more times. For example, mothers to receive ANC four or more times. For example, 45 percent of women living in the poorest quintile reported 45 percent of women living in the poorest quintile reported four or more antenatal care visits compared with 82 four or more antenatal care visits compared with 82 percent among those living in households in the richest percent among those living in households in the richest quintile. Almost 14 percent of mothers who did not finish quintile. Almost 14 percent of mothers who did not finish primary education and 12 percent of mothers from the primary education and 12 percent of mothers from the poorest quintile had no ANC visits during their pregnancy. poorest quintile had no ANC visits during their pregnancy. MONITORING THE SITUATION OF CHILDREN AND WOMEN 129 MULTIPLE INDICATOR CLUSTER SURVEY 2010130 Table RH.7R: Number of antenatal care visits, Roma Settlements, 2010 Percent distribution of women who had a live birth during the two years preceding the survey by number of antenatal care visits by any provider Percent distribution of women who had: Missing/DK Total Number of women who had a live birth in the preceding two years No antenetal care visits One visit Two visits Three visits 4 or more visits1 Area  Urban 5.5 3.3 4.5 7.3 72.6 6.7 100.0 294 Rural 5.3 3.1 7.1 8.1 70.6 5.8 100.0 146 Mother’s age at birth  Less than 20 4.7 .8 3.0 6.8 78.2 6.5 100.0 154 20–34 6.2 3.5 6.6 8.4 69.5 5.9 100.0 264 35–49 (*) (*) (*) (*) (*) (*) 100.0 21 Education  None 13.8 4.1 9.1 14.8 53.2 5.1 100.0 89 Primary 3.7 3.6 5.4 6.9 72.7 7.6 100.0 291 Secondary 1.5 .0 .0 .0 97.8 .7 100.0 59 Wealth index quintile  Poorest 10.8 9.4 9.8 17.0 45.2 7.8 100.0 106 Second 3.3 3.0 5.8 9.5 76.5 1.9 100.0 99 Middle 11.0 .5 1.1 2.4 73.0 11.9 100.0 80 Fourth .6 .0 2.4 2.2 90.9 3.9 100.0 81 Richest .0 1.1 6.5 3.1 82.0 7.3 100.0 75 Total 5.5 3.2 5.4 7.6 71.9 6.4 100.0 440 1 MICS indicator 5.5b; MDG indicator 5.5 (*) Figures that are based on less than 25 unweighted cases The types of services that pregnant women from Roma The types of services that pregnant women from Roma settlements received are shown in Table RH.8R. Among settlements received are shown in Table RH.8R. Among those women who have given birth to a child during the those women who have given birth to a child during the two years preceding the survey, 90 percent reported that two years preceding the survey, 90 percent reported that a blood sample was taken during antenatal care visits and a blood sample was taken during antenatal care visits and that their blood pressure was checked, while 89 percent that their blood pressure was checked, while 89 percent reported that a urine specimen was taken. reported that a urine specimen was taken. MULTIPLE INDICATOR CLUSTER SURVEY 2010130 MONITORING THE SITUATION OF CHILDREN AND WOMEN 131 Table RH.8R: Content of antenatal care, Roma Settlements, 2010 Percentage of women age 15–49 years who had their blood pressure measured, urine sample taken, and blood sample taken as part of antenatal care   Percentage of pregnant women who had: Number of women who had a live birth in the preceding two years Blood pressure measured Urine sample taken Blood sample taken Blood pressure measured, urine and blood sample taken1 Area  Urban 90.3 90.1 91.1 89.3 294 Rural 89.5 87.3 88.7 86.8 146 Mother’s age at birth  Less than 20 92.8 93.3 94.1 92.0 154 20–34 88.8 87.0 88.4 86.7 264 35–49 (*) (*) (*) (*) 21 Education  None 74.1 73.0 75.2 72.4 89 Primary 93.3 92.2 93.2 91.5 291 Secondary 98.0 98.5 98.5 98.0 59 Wealth index quintile  Poorest 77.7 74.3 77.4 73.4 106 Second 90.0 89.1 90.9 87.8 99 Middle 88.0 88.3 88.3 88.0 80 Fourth 99.4 99.4 99.4 99.4 81 Richest 99.6 100.0 100.0 99.6 75 Total 90.1 89.1 90.3 88.5 440 1 MICS indicator 5.6 (*) Figures that are based on less than 25 unweighted cases MONITORING THE SITUATION OF CHILDREN AND WOMEN 131 MULTIPLE INDICATOR CLUSTER SURVEY 2010132 Assistance at DeliveryAssistance at Delivery Three-quarters of all maternal deaths occur during Three-quarters of all maternal deaths occur during delivery and the immediate post-partum period. The delivery and the immediate post-partum period. The single most critical intervention for safe motherhood is to single most critical intervention for safe motherhood is to ensure a competent health worker with midwifery skills ensure a competent health worker with midwifery skills is present at every birth, and transport is available to a is present at every birth, and transport is available to a Table RH.9: Assistance during delivery, Serbia, 2010 Percent distribution of women age 15–49 who had a live birth in the two years preceding the survey by person assisting at delivery and percentage of births delivered by C-section   Person assisting at delivery No attendant Total Delivery assisted by any skilled attendant1 Percent delivered by C-section2 Number of women who had a live birth in preceding two years Medical doctor Nurse/ Midwife Traditional birth attendant Relative/ Friend Other Region  Belgrade 93.4 5.9 .4 .0 .4 .0 100.0 99.2 25.0 91 Vojvodina 88.1 11.9 .0 .0 .0 .0 100.0 100.0 19.5 163 Sumadija and Western Serbia 98.5 1.5 .0 .0 .0 .0 100.0 100.0 26.6 144 Southern and Eastern Serbia 93.3 6.2 .0 .3 .0 .3 100.0 99.5 28.0 146 Area  Urban 90.9 8.9 .1 .0 .0 .1 100.0 99.8 24.0 281 Rural 95.5 4.1 .0 .1 .1 .1 100.0 99.6 25.2 262 Mother’s age at birth  Less than 20 94.9 3.8 1.3 .0 .0 .0 100.0 98.7 33.2 28 20–34 92.7 7.0 .0 .1 .1 .1 100.0 99.8 22.4 456 35–49 95.3 4.7 .0 .0 .0 .0 100.0 100.0 37.8 59 Place of delivery  Public sector health facility 93.2 6.7 .0 .0 .1 .0 100.0 99.9 25.0 534 Private sector health facility (*) (*) (*) (*) (*) (*) 100.0 (*) (*) 8 Home (*) (*) (*) (*) (*) (*) 100.0 (*) (*) 1 Education  Primary 94.9 4.6 .0 .5 .0 .0 100.0 99.5 17.5 79 Secondary 93.1 6.7 .0 .0 .1 .1 100.0 99.8 24.2 307 Higher 93.4 6.5 .0 .0 .0 .1 100.0 99.9 30.5 148 Wealth index quintiles Poorest 94.6 4.7 .3 .3 .0 .0 100.0 99.3 18.1 112 Second 96.1 3.9 .0 .0 .0 .0 100.0 100.0 23.7 97 Middle 92.1 7.8 .0 .0 .0 .2 100.0 99.8 22.8 87 Fourth 91.6 8.4 .0 .0 .0 .0 100.0 100.0 28.7 106 Richest 91.7 7.9 .0 .0 .2 .2 100.0 99.6 28.4 141 Total 93.1 6.6 .1 .1 .1 .1 100.0 99.7 24.6 543 1 MICS indicator 5.7; MDG indicator 5.2 2 MICS indicator 5.9 (*) Figures that are based on less than 25 unweighted cases referral facility for obstetric care in case of emergency. referral facility for obstetric care in case of emergency. A World Fit for Children goal is to ensure that women A World Fit for Children goal is to ensure that women have ready and affordable access to have ready and affordable access to skilled attendantsskilled attendants at at delivery. The indicators are the proportion of births with delivery. The indicators are the proportion of births with a skilled attendant and the proportion of institutional a skilled attendant and the proportion of institutional MONITORING THE SITUATION OF CHILDREN AND WOMEN 133 deliveries. The “skilled attendant at delivery” indicator deliveries. The “skilled attendant at delivery” indicator is also used to track progress toward the Millennium is also used to track progress toward the Millennium Development target of reducing the maternal mortality Development target of reducing the maternal mortality ratio by three quarters between 1990 and 2015.ratio by three quarters between 1990 and 2015. The MICS included a number of questions to assess the The MICS included a number of questions to assess the proportion of births attended by a skilled attendant.proportion of births attended by a skilled attendant. A A skilled attendantskilled attendant includes a doctor, nurse, midwife or includes a doctor, nurse, midwife or auxiliary midwife.auxiliary midwife. Almost all births (99.7 percent) occurring in the two years Almost all births (99.7 percent) occurring in the two years preceding the MICS survey were delivered by skilled preceding the MICS survey were delivered by skilled personnel (Table RH.9). This percentage is equally high personnel (Table RH.9). This percentage is equally high across all background characteristics. Doctors assisted across all background characteristics. Doctors assisted with the delivery of 93 percent of births and nurses with the delivery of 93 percent of births and nurses assisted with 7 percent.assisted with 7 percent. Every fourth woman (25 percent) in Serbia gave birth Every fourth woman (25 percent) in Serbia gave birth by Caesarean section and this is more frequent among by Caesarean section and this is more frequent among women from the richest quintile (28 percent), women with women from the richest quintile (28 percent), women with higher education (30 percent) and among women older higher education (30 percent) and among women older than 35 years (38 percent). than 35 years (38 percent). MULTIPLE INDICATOR CLUSTER SURVEY 2010134 Assistance at Delivery in Roma SettlementsAssistance at Delivery in Roma Settlements Almost all births from Roma settlements (99.5 percent) in Almost all births from Roma settlements (99.5 percent) in the two years preceding the MICS survey were delivered the two years preceding the MICS survey were delivered by skilled personnel (Table RH.9R). This percentage is by skilled personnel (Table RH.9R). This percentage is equally high across all background characteristics. Doctors equally high across all background characteristics. Doctors assisted with the delivery of 88 percent of births and assisted with the delivery of 88 percent of births and nurses assisted with 12 percent.nurses assisted with 12 percent. In total, 14 percent of women from Roma settlements In total, 14 percent of women from Roma settlements in Serbia gave birth by Caesarean section. The highest in Serbia gave birth by Caesarean section. The highest percentage of births by Caesarean section are among the percentage of births by Caesarean section are among the richer quintiles, the most educated groups and among richer quintiles, the most educated groups and among women living in urban areas. women living in urban areas. Table RH.9R: Assistance during delivery, Roma Settlements, 2010 Percent distribution of women age 15–49 who had a live birth in the two years preceding the survey by person assisting at delivery and percentage of births delivered by C-section Person assisting at delivery No attendant Total Delivery assisted by any skilled attendant1 Percent delivered by C-section2 Number of women who had a live birth in preceding two years Medical doctor Nurse/ Midwife Traditional birth attendant Relative/ Friend Husband Other Area  Urban 85.1 14.4 .1 .2 .0 .0 .1 100.0 99.6 16.9 294 Rural 93.2 6.2 .0 .0 .2 .3 .0 100.0 99.4 7.0 146 Mother’s age at birth  Less than 20 87.0 13.0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 100.0 100.0 7.4 154 20–34 87.7 11.6 .1 .1 .1 .2 .1 100.0 99.3 16.3 264 35–49 (*) (*) (*) (*) (*) (*) (*) 100.0 (*) (*) 21 Place of delivery  Public sector health facility 88.2 11.8 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 100.0 100.0 13.7 437 Home (*) (*) (*) (*) (*) (*) (*) 100.0 (*) (*) 2 Other (*) (*) (*) (*) (*) (*) (*) 100.0 (*) (*) 1 Education  None 88.6 10.1 .4 .3 .0 .6 .0 100.0 98.7 12.2 89 Primary 88.0 11.6 .0 .1 .1 .0 .1 100.0 99.7 12.8 291 Secondary 86.8 13.2 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 100.0 100.0 19.9 59 Wealth index quintiles  Poorest 89.5 8.8 .0 .6 .3 .5 .3 100.0 98.3 11.5 106 Second 85.2 14.8 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 100.0 100.0 9.5 99 Middle 89.6 10.4 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 100.0 100.0 10.7 80 Fourth 88.8 10.8 .4 .0 .0 .0 .0 100.0 99.6 20.5 81 Richest 85.7 14.3 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 100.0 100.0 17.8 75 Total 87.8 11.7 .1 .1 .1 .1 .1 100.0 99.5 13.6 440 1 MICS indicator 5.7; MDG indicator 5.2 2 MICS indicator 5.9 (*) Figures that are based on less than 25 unweighted cases MULTIPLE INDICATOR CLUSTER SURVEY 2010134 MONITORING THE SITUATION OF CHILDREN AND WOMEN 135 Place of DeliveryPlace of Delivery Increasing the proportion of deliveries in health facilities Increasing the proportion of deliveries in health facilities is an important factor in reducing the health risks to both is an important factor in reducing the health risks to both the mother and the baby. Proper medical attention and the mother and the baby. Proper medical attention and hygienic conditions during delivery can reduce the risks of hygienic conditions during delivery can reduce the risks of complications and infection that can cause morbidity and complications and infection that can cause morbidity and mortality to either the mother or the baby. Table RH.10 mortality to either the mother or the baby. Table RH.10 presents the percentage distribution of women aged 15–49 presents the percentage distribution of women aged 15–49 who had a live birth in the two years preceding the survey who had a live birth in the two years preceding the survey by place of delivery and the percentage of births delivered in a by place of delivery and the percentage of births delivered in a health facility, according to background characteristics. health facility, according to background characteristics. Almost all (99.8 percent) births in Serbia are delivered in a Almost all (99.8 percent) births in Serbia are delivered in a health facility; 98 percent of deliveries occur in public sector health facility; 98 percent of deliveries occur in public sector facilities and only 1 percent occurs in private sector facilities. facilities and only 1 percent occurs in private sector facilities. Utilization of private sector health facilities for deliveries is Utilization of private sector health facilities for deliveries is more frequent only in Belgrade (7 percent) and among women more frequent only in Belgrade (7 percent) and among women with higher levels of educational attainment (3 percent). with higher levels of educational attainment (3 percent). Table RH.10: Place of delivery, Serbia, 2010 Percent distribution of women age 15–49 who had a live birth in two years preceding the survey by place of delivery   Place of delivery Total Delivered in health facility1 Number of women who had a live birth in preceding two years Public sector health facility Private sector health facility Home Other Region  Belgrade 92.4 7.2 .4 .0 100.0 99.6 91 Vojvodina 100.0 .0 .0 .0 100.0 100.0 163 Sumadija and Western Serbia 99.3 .7 .0 .0 100.0 100.0 144 Southern and Eastern Serbia 99.4 .0 .3 .3 100.0 99.4 146 Area Urban 98.5 1.3 .1 .1 100.0 99.8 281 Rural 98.2 1.5 .1 .1 100.0 99.8 262 Mother’s age at birth  Less than 20 97.5 1.1 1.3 .0 100.0 98.7 28 20–34 98.3 1.5 .1 .1 100.0 99.8 456 35–49 99.7 .3 .0 .0 100.0 100.0 59 Number of antenatal care visits  None (*) (*) (*) (*) 100.0 (*) 5 1–3 visits (100.0) (0.0) (0.0) (0.0) 100.0 (100.0) 15 4+ visits 98.4 1.5 .1 .0 100.0 99.9 511 Missing/DK (100.0) (0.0) (0.0) (0.0) 100.0 (100.0) 12 Education  Primary 99.1 .4 .5 .0 100.0 99.5 79 Secondary 98.7 1.1 .0 .2 100.0 99.8 307 Higher 97.5 2.5 .0 .0 100.0 100.0 148 Wealth index quintiles  Poorest 99.0 .3 .7 .0 100.0 99.3 112 Second 100.0 .0 .0 .0 100.0 100.0 97 Middle 95.6 4.4 .0 .0 100.0 100.0 87 Fourth 100.0 .0 .0 .0 100.0 100.0 106 Richest 97.3 2.4 .0 .3 100.0 99.7 141 Total 98.4 1.4 .1 .1 100.0 99.8 543 1 MICS indicator 5.8 ( ) Figures that are based on 25–49 unweighted cases (*) Figures that are based on less than 25 unweighted cases MULTIPLE INDICATOR CLUSTER SURVEY 2010136 Place of Delivery in Roma Settlements Place of Delivery in Roma Settlements Almost all (99.3 percent) births by women from Roma Almost all (99.3 percent) births by women from Roma settlements in Serbia are delivered in public sector health settlements in Serbia are delivered in public sector health facilities. About 2 percent of women from the poorest facilities. About 2 percent of women from the poorest quintile and women that did not finish primary school quintile and women that did not finish primary school delivered at home. delivered at home. Table RH.10R: Place of delivery, Roma Settlements, 2010 Percent distribution of women age 15–49 who had a live birth in two years preceding the survey by place of delivery   Place of delivery Total Delivered in health facility1 Number of women who had a live birth in preceding two years Public sector health facility Home Other Area  Urban 99.5 .4 .1 100.0 99.5 294 Rural 99.0 .6 .3 100.0 99.0 146 Mother’s age at birth  Less than 20 100.0 .0 .0 100.0 100.0 154 20–34 99.0 .7 .3 100.0 99.0 264 35–49 (*) (*) (*) 100.0 (*) 21 Number of antenatal care visits  None (97.2) (2.8) (0.0) 100.0 (97.2) 24 1–3 visits 98.1 1.2 .7 100.0 98.1 71 4+ visits 99.8 .1 .1 100.0 99.8 316 Missing/DK (98.9) (1.1) (.0) 100.0 (98.9) 28 Education  None 97.8 1.7 .6 100.0 97.8 89 Primary 99.7 .2 .1 100.0 99.7 291 Secondary 100.0 .0 .0 100.0 100.0 59 Wealth index quintiles  Poorest 97.5 1.7 .8 100.0 97.5 106 Second 100.0 .0 .0 100.0 100.0 99 Middle 100.0 .0 .0 100.0 100.0 80 Fourth 99.6 .4 .0 100.0 99.6 81 Richest 100.0 .0 .0 100.0 100.0 75 Total 99.3 .5 .2 100.0 99.3 440 1 MICS indicator 5.8 ( ) Figures that are based on 25–49 unweighted cases  (*) Figures that are based on less than 25 unweighted cases MULTIPLE INDICATOR CLUSTER SURVEY 2010136 MONITORING THE SITUATION OF CHILDREN AND WOMEN 137 Early Childhood EducationEarly Childhood Education and Learning and Learning Attendance to early childhood education in an organized Attendance to early childhood education in an organized learning, a child education programme or pre-school is learning, a child education programme or pre-school is important for the readiness of children to school.important for the readiness of children to school. In Serbia, 44 percent of children aged 36–59 months In Serbia, 44 percent of children aged 36–59 months are attending an organised early childhood education are attending an organised early childhood education programme (Table CD.1). Urban-rural and regional programme (Table CD.1). Urban-rural and regional differentials are present — the figure is as high as 57 percent differentials are present — the figure is as high as 57 percent in urban areas, compared to 29 percent in rural areas. in urban areas, compared to 29 percent in rural areas. Among children aged 36–59 months, attendance to early Among children aged 36–59 months, attendance to early IXIX CHILD DEVELOPMENT CHILD DEVELOPMENT childhood education programmes is more prevalent in childhood education programmes is more prevalent in Belgrade (59 percent), and lowest in South and East Serbia Belgrade (59 percent), and lowest in South and East Serbia (30 percent). No big gender difference was observed, but (30 percent). No big gender difference was observed, but differentials by socioeconomic status need to be highlighted: differentials by socioeconomic status need to be highlighted: 75 percent of children living in the households within the 75 percent of children living in the households within the richest quintile attend such programmes, while the figure richest quintile attend such programmes, while the figure drops to 22 percent in the poorest quintile. It is interesting drops to 22 percent in the poorest quintile. It is interesting to note that the proportions of children attending early to note that the proportions of children attending early childhood education programmes at ages 36–47 months and childhood education programmes at ages 36–47 months and 48–59 months are 39 percent and 49 percent respectively.48–59 months are 39 percent and 49 percent respectively. Table CD.1: Early childhood education, Serbia, 2010 Percentage of children age 36–59 months who are attending an organized early childhood education programme   Percentage of children age 36–59 months currently attending early childhood education1 Number of children age 36–59 months Sex  Male 40.7 655 Female 46.6 751 Region  Belgrade 59.4 280 Vojvodina 53.3 420 Sumadija and Western Serbia 34.2 380 Southern and Eastern Serbia 29.6 326 Area  Urban 56.6 763 Rural 28.7 644   Percentage of children age 36–59 months currently attending early childhood education1 Number of children age 36–59 months Age of child  36–47 months 38.6 663 48–59 months 48.5 743 Mother’s education  Primary 20.8 185 Secondary 40.2 866 Higher 66.5 346 Wealth index quintile  Poorest 21.9 240 Second 27.0 314 Middle 35.5 265 Fourth 54.7 277 Richest 75.2 311 Total 43.8 1406 1 MICS indicator 6.7 MULTIPLE INDICATOR CLUSTER SURVEY 2010138 A specific question was added in MICS4 questionnaire A specific question was added in MICS4 questionnaire to explore reasons for non-attendance at kindergarten of to explore reasons for non-attendance at kindergarten of children aged 36–59 months (Table CD.1A). The response children aged 36–59 months (Table CD.1A). The response categories are classified into three broad groups: parents’ categories are classified into three broad groups: parents’ attitudes, problems of access, and other reasons. The first attitudes, problems of access, and other reasons. The first category of answers includes the following reasons for non-category of answers includes the following reasons for non- attendance given by parents: their opinion that the child attendance given by parents: their opinion that the child will not learn anything important, that there is someone will not learn anything important, that there is someone at home who can take care of the child, that the child at home who can take care of the child, that the child is disabled, that services are of low quality and that the is disabled, that services are of low quality and that the child will be poorly treated. The reasons related to access child will be poorly treated. The reasons related to access comprise the inability to enroll a child if both parents are comprise the inability to enroll a child if both parents are unemployed, overcrowded facilities, costly services, other unemployed, overcrowded facilities, costly services, other high expenses, and no organized transport for children.high expenses, and no organized transport for children. The main reasons for non-attendance, in 59 percent of The main reasons for non-attendance, in 59 percent of cases, is the opinion of parents that there is no need for cases, is the opinion of parents that there is no need for a child to attend kindergarten as there is someone at a child to attend kindergarten as there is someone at home home who can take care of the child. For highly educated who can take care of the child. For highly educated mothers and better off parents, this percentage grows to 68 mothers and better off parents, this percentage grows to 68 and 79 percent respectively. In 37 percent issues of access and 79 percent respectively. In 37 percent issues of access are reported as an obstacle. Within this group 13 percent are reported as an obstacle. Within this group 13 percent is due to lack of organized transport (much higher in rural is due to lack of organized transport (much higher in rural than urban areas) and in 8 percent to overcrowded facilities. than urban areas) and in 8 percent to overcrowded facilities. For 12 percent of children, the direct cost of kindergarten For 12 percent of children, the direct cost of kindergarten services are the reason for non-attendance while this services are the reason for non-attendance while this percentage grows to 25 percent for the poorest quintile.percentage grows to 25 percent for the poorest quintile. It is well recognized that a period of rapid brain development It is well recognized that a period of rapid brain development occurs in the first 3–4 years of life, and the quality of home occurs in the first 3–4 years of life, and the quality of home care is the major determinant of the child’s development care is the major determinant of the child’s development during this period. In this context, adult activities with during this period. In this context, adult activities with children, the presence of books for the child in the home, children, the presence of books for the child in the home, and the conditions of care are important indicators of the and the conditions of care are important indicators of the quality of home care. Children should be physically healthy, quality of home care. Children should be physically healthy, mentally alert, emotionally secure, socially competent and mentally alert, emotionally secure, socially competent and ready to learn.ready to learn. Information on a number of activities that support early Information on a number of activities that support early learning was collected in the survey. These included learning was collected in the survey. These included the involvement of adults with children in the following the involvement of adults with children in the following activities: reading books or looking at picture books, telling activities: reading books or looking at picture books, telling stories, singing songs, taking children outside the home, stories, singing songs, taking children outside the home, compound or yard, playing with children, and spending compound or yard, playing with children, and spending time with children naming, counting, or drawing things. time with children naming, counting, or drawing things. Table CD.1A: Early child development, Serbia, 2010 Children aged 36–59 months — Reasons for not attending kindergarten Parents’ attitudes Not much to learn in kindergarten Disabled Low level of service Poor treatment Sex  Male 1.3 .1 .6 .0 Female .4 .3 .4 .2 Region  Belgrade 4.5 .0 1.9 .6 Vojvodina .2 .2 .0 .0 Sumadija and Western Serbia .0 .5 .5 .0 Southern and Eastern Serbia .5 .0 .2 .0 Area  Urban 1.6 .4 .7 .2 Rural .3 .1 .4 .0 Age  36–47 months 1.4 .0 .6 .0 48–59 months .3 .5 .4 .2 Mother’s education  Primary .5 .0 .0 .0 Secondary .8 .3 .5 .0 Higher 1.3 .0 1.3 .0 Father’s education  Primary .5 .0 .0 .0 Secondary .9 .2 .5 .0 Higher 1.6 .0 .6 .0 Father not in household (0.0) (1.8) (1.9) (1.7) Wealth index quintile  Poorest .0 .3 .0 .4 Second .0 .0 .0 .0 Middle .0 .0 .4 .0 Fourth 1.8 .6 .9 .0 Richest 5.7 .6 2.6 .0 Total .8 .2 .5 .1 ( ) Figures that are based on 25–49 unweighted cases MONITORING THE SITUATION OF CHILDREN AND WOMEN 139 Reasons for not attending kindergarten Parents’ attitudes Access problems Other reasons Number of children 36–59 months old not attending kindergarten Access problems Other reasons The child is taken care at home Parents unemployed Overcrowded facility Costly services Other expenses too high No organized transport for children 55.1 5.7 8.8 12.2 3.5 13.9 14.4 55.8 39.7 14.4 389 62.0 5.5 6.8 12.1 1.1 11.1 10.6 62.6 33.5 10.6 401 50.5 22.9 12.2 18.1 6.4 5.6 8.5 52.4 56.9 8.5 114 57.6 2.5 8.9 19.2 2.7 1.0 18.5 57.8 32.4 18.5 196 60.2 3.3 5.2 7.2 .7 16.3 18.3 61.2 28.5 18.3 250 61.8 2.2 7.4 8.6 1.6 21.6 3.0 61.8 38.9 3.0 230 67.9 10.0 8.3 13.7 3.5 .4 6.9 69.1 32.7 6.9 331 51.9 2.4 7.4 11.0 1.4 21.2 16.5 52.1 39.4 16.5 459 59.9 6.5 6.2 10.3 2.8 10.0 14.8 60.2 32.4 14.8 407 57.2 4.7 9.5 14.2 1.7 15.2 10.0 58.2 41.0 10.0 383 53.8 5.3 10.0 21.3 3.7 8.6 11.9 53.8 41.8 11.9 146 58.0 7.0 8.1 7.9 1.6 15.4 13.6 58.6 37.2 13.6 518 67.8 .5 4.3 19.2 2.3 5.7 8.5 68.7 27.9 8.5 116 47.4 7.9 5.4 21.4 5.5 22.5 15.8 47.4 54.3 15.8 152 61.0 3.6 9.4 8.2 1.4 12.0 12.3 61.6 31.5 12.3 502 69.4 13.9 1.8 12.0 1.1 3.9 7.0 69.4 32.3 7.0 94 (43.6) (2.5) (10.2) (28.0) (4.1) (1.6) (16.0) (49.0) (43.9) (16.0) 40 45.5 5.3 5.7 24.7 4.4 10.5 17.5 46.2 44.0 17.5 187 53.7 7.1 4.5 7.8 .7 19.2 18.0 53.7 38.3 18.0 229 69.5 6.8 8.1 1.9 .2 12.3 7.6 69.9 28.1 7.6 171 59.7 4.1 13.0 15.9 2.8 10.9 6.7 60.7 38.7 6.7 125 79.0 2.2 13.2 11.5 5.1 .5 4.5 81.5 28.4 4.5 77 58.6 5.6 7.8 12.2 2.3 12.5 12.5 59.3 36.6 12.5 790 MULTIPLE INDICATOR CLUSTER SURVEY 2010140 For almost all children under-five (95 percent) an For almost all children under-five (95 percent) an adult household member engaged in more than four adult household member engaged in more than four activities that promote learning and school readiness activities that promote learning and school readiness during the 3 days preceding the survey (Table CD.2). during the 3 days preceding the survey (Table CD.2). The average number of activities that adults engaged The average number of activities that adults engaged in with children was 6. The table also indicates that in with children was 6. The table also indicates that the father’s were involved in 3 activities. Father’s the father’s were involved in 3 activities. Father’s involvement in one or more activities was 78 percent. involvement in one or more activities was 78 percent. Overall, 7 percent of children were living in a Overall, 7 percent of children were living in a household without their fathers.household without their fathers. Table CD.2: Support for learning, Serbia, 2010 Percentage of children age 36–59 months with whom an adult household member engaged in activities that promote learning and school readiness during the last three days Percentage of children age 36–59 months Mean number of activities Percentage of children not living with their natural father Number of children age 36–59 months With whom adult household members engaged in four or more activities1 With whom the father engaged in one or more activities2 Any adult household member engaged with the child The father engaged with the child Sex Male 95.5 82.3 5.6 2.8 7.1 655 Female 94.9 74.2 5.6 2.4 6.5 751 Region  Belgrade 97.1 82.4 5.7 3.0 6.6 280 Vojvodina 88.9 71.5 5.2 2.1 11.0 420 Sumadija and Western Serbia 97.9 78.4 5.7 2.8 3.6 380 Southern and Eastern Serbia 98.4 82.2 5.8 2.6 5.2 326 Area  Urban 95.8 76.0 5.6 2.7 9.1 763 Rural 94.4 80.4 5.5 2.4 4.1 644 Age  36–47 months 95.0 77.4 5.6 2.6 4.7 663 48–59 months 95.3 78.5 5.6 2.6 8.6 743 Mother’s education  Primary 85.8 60.0 5.0 1.8 13.6 185 Secondary 96.8 81.1 5.7 2.6 5.8 866 Higher 96.6 80.2 5.7 2.9 5.2 346 Father’s education  Primary 87.3 66.3 5.1 1.9 na 186 Secondary 95.9 84.3 5.6 2.7 na 855 Higher 98.2 87.9 5.7 3.5 na 268 Father not in household 95.3 17.6 5.4 na na 95 Wealth index quintiles  Poorest 84.0 62.2 5.0 1.9 11.0 240 Second 96.8 81.9 5.7 2.8 2.3 314 Middle 98.9 85.9 5.7 2.5 2.2 265 Fourth 96.8 72.5 5.7 2.6 14.7 277 Richest 97.5 84.3 5.7 3.0 5.0 311 Total 95.2 78.0 5.6 2.6 6.8 1406 1 MICS indicator 6.1 2 MICS Indicator 6.2 MONITORING THE SITUATION OF CHILDREN AND WOMEN 141 There are no gender differentials in terms of adult activities There are no gender differentials in terms of adult activities with children; however, a larger proportion of fathers with children; however, a larger proportion of fathers engaged in activities with boys (82 percent) than with girls engaged in activities with boys (82 percent) than with girls (74 percent). There were no large differences in adults (74 percent). There were no large differences in adults engaged in learning and school readiness activities with engaged in learning and school readiness activities with children between urban areas (96 percent), and rural areas children between urban areas (96 percent), and rural areas (94 percent). Adult engagement in activities with children (94 percent). Adult engagement in activities with children was lowest in Vojvodina (89 percent). The proportion was was lowest in Vojvodina (89 percent). The proportion was 98 percent for children in the richest quintile, in contrast 98 percent for children in the richest quintile, in contrast to those living in households within the poorest quintile to those living in households within the poorest quintile (84 percent). Father’s involvement was 76 percent in urban (84 percent). Father’s involvement was 76 percent in urban areas compared to 80 percent in rural areas.areas compared to 80 percent in rural areas. Exposure to books in the early years not only provides Exposure to books in the early years not only provides the child with greater understanding of the nature the child with greater understanding of the nature of print, but may also give the child opportunities to of print, but may also give the child opportunities to see others reading, such as older siblings doing school see others reading, such as older siblings doing school work. Presence of books is important for later school work. Presence of books is important for later school performance and IQ scores. The mother/caretaker performance and IQ scores. The mother/caretaker of all children under-5 were asked about the number of all children under-5 were asked about the number of children’s books or picture books they have for of children’s books or picture books they have for the child, household objects or outside objects, and the child, household objects or outside objects, and homemade toys or toys that came from a shop that are homemade toys or toys that came from a shop that are available at home.available at home. Table CD.3: Learning materials, Serbia, 2010 Percentage of children under age 5 by numbers of children’s books present in the household, and by playthings that child plays with Household has for the child: Child plays with: Two or more types of playthings2 Number of children under age 5 3 or more children’s books1 10 or more children’s books Homemade toys Toys from a shop/ manufactured toys Household objects/ objects found outside Sex  Male 75.7 56.9 24.4 95.6 64.1 65.5 1670 Female 76.1 58.6 25.6 95.1 59.1 60.3 1704 Region  Belgrade 83.2 66.5 24.2 98.5 64.0 64.1 639 Vojvodina 80.8 58.2 30.7 93.4 65.0 67.0 994 Sumadija and Western Serbia 67.1 50.2 26.3 94.5 54.6 56.4 905 Southern and Eastern Serbia 74.1 58.7 17.5 96.2 63.2 64.0 836 Area  Urban 82.0 65.0 22.4 97.6 60.5 61.9 1810 Rural 68.9 49.4 28.0 92.7 62.8 63.9 1564 Age  0–23 months 47.2 31.2 12.8 90.6 46.4 46.5 1220 24–59 months 92.2 72.8 31.9 98.0 70.1 72.1 2154 Mother’s education  Primary 49.4 27.9 33.8 87.9 65.3 65.9 480 Secondary 79.0 59.8 24.1 96.5 60.1 61.6 1982 Higher 86.2 71.5 21.3 97.8 62.0 63.4 878 Wealth index quintiles  Poorest 49.3 26.7 33.1 86.8 63.6 65.0 634 Second 74.4 55.6 31.3 97.0 64.0 65.2 658 Middle 83.4 65.0 21.6 96.0 61.9 62.8 599 Fourth 83.2 67.9 23.6 97.0 60.7 61.5 665 Richest 86.4 70.1 17.4 98.9 58.4 60.4 818 Total 75.9 57.8 25.0 95.4 61.6 62.8 3374 1 MICS indicator 6.3 2 MICS indicator 6.4 MULTIPLE INDICATOR CLUSTER SURVEY 2010142 In Serbia, 76 percent of children aged 0–59 months In Serbia, 76 percent of children aged 0–59 months live in households where at least 3 children’s books are live in households where at least 3 children’s books are present for the child (Table CD.3). Children with 10 or present for the child (Table CD.3). Children with 10 or more books declines to 58 percent. While no gender more books declines to 58 percent. While no gender differentials are observed, urban children appear to have differentials are observed, urban children appear to have greater access to children’s books than those living in rural greater access to children’s books than those living in rural households. The proportion of children under-5 who have households. The proportion of children under-5 who have 3 or more children’s books is 82 percent in urban areas, 3 or more children’s books is 82 percent in urban areas, compared to 69 percent in rural areas. The presence of compared to 69 percent in rural areas. The presence of children’s books is positively correlated with the child’s children’s books is positively correlated with the child’s age; in the homes of 92 percent of children aged 24–59 age; in the homes of 92 percent of children aged 24–59 months, there are 3 or more children’s books, while the months, there are 3 or more children’s books, while the figure is 47 percent for children aged 0–23 months. figure is 47 percent for children aged 0–23 months. When children for whom there are 10 or more children’s When children for whom there are 10 or more children’s books or picture books are taken into account, two-thirds of books or picture books are taken into account, two-thirds of children in urban areas (65 percent) and half of the children children in urban areas (65 percent) and half of the children in rural areas (49 percent) have 10 or more books.in rural areas (49 percent) have 10 or more books. Table CD.3 also shows that 63 percent of children Table CD.3 also shows that 63 percent of children aged 0–59 months had 2 or more types of playthings aged 0–59 months had 2 or more types of playthings to play with in their homes. The playthings in MICS to play with in their homes. The playthings in MICS included homemade toys (such as dolls and cars, or included homemade toys (such as dolls and cars, or other toys made at home), toys that came from a store, and other toys made at home), toys that came from a store, and household household objects (such as pots and bowls) or objects and objects (such as pots and bowls) or objects and materials found outside the home (such as sticks, rocks, materials found outside the home (such as sticks, rocks, animal shells, or leaves). It is interesting to note that 95 animal shells, or leaves). It is interesting to note that 95 percent of children play with toys that come from a store. percent of children play with toys that come from a store. The proportion of children who have 2 or more types The proportion of children who have 2 or more types of playthings is 66 percent among boys and 60 percent of playthings is 66 percent among boys and 60 percent among girls. No urban-rural differentials are observed in among girls. No urban-rural differentials are observed in this respect or in terms of the mothers’ education. Toys this respect or in terms of the mothers’ education. Toys from stores are present more among children whose from stores are present more among children whose household has higher socioeconomic status or where household has higher socioeconomic status or where the mother has a higher education.the mother has a higher education. Leaving children alone or in the presence of other young Leaving children alone or in the presence of other young children is known to increase the risk of accidents. In children is known to increase the risk of accidents. In MICS, two questions were asked to find out whether MICS, two questions were asked to find out whether children aged 0–59 months were left alone during the children aged 0–59 months were left alone during the week preceding the interview, and whether children were week preceding the interview, and whether children were left in the care of other children under 10 years of age.left in the care of other children under 10 years of age. Table CD.4 shows that 1 percent of children aged 0–59 Table CD.4 shows that 1 percent of children aged 0–59 months were left with inadequate care during the week months were left with inadequate care during the week preceding the survey, either being left alone or in the preceding the survey, either being left alone or in the care of another child. No differences were observed by care of another child. No differences were observed by background characteristics.background characteristics. Table CD.4: Inadequate care, Serbia, 2010 Percentage of children under age 5 left alone or left in the care of another child younger than 10 years of age for more than one hour at least once during the past week Percentage of children under age 5 Left alone in the past week Left in the care of another child younger than 10 years of age in the past week Left with inadequate care in the past week1 Number of children under age 5 Sex  Male .7 .6 1.0 1670 Female .8 .5 1.1 1704 Region  Belgrade 1.0 .9 1.7 639 Vojvodina .3 .5 .5 994 Sumadija and Western Serbia 1.6 .6 1.9 905 Southern and Eastern Serbia .1 .3 .3 836 Area  Urban .8 .5 1.2 1810 Rural .7 .6 .9 1564 Age  0–23 months .2 .1 .2 1220 24–59 months 1.1 .8 1.5 2154 Mother’s education  Primary .6 1.1 1.1 480 Secondary .8 .3 1.1 1982 Higher .5 .4 .7 878 Wealth index quintiles  Poorest 1.1 1.4 1.6 634 Second 1.2 .3 1.4 658 Middle 1.2 .2 1.3 599 Fourth .3 .4 .5 665 Richest .2 .4 .6 818 Total .8 .5 1.0 3374 1 MICS indicator 6.5 MONITORING THE SITUATION OF CHILDREN AND WOMEN 143 Early Childhood Education and LearningEarly Childhood Education and Learning in Roma Settlementsin Roma Settlements Only 8 percent of children in Roma settlements, aged 36–59Only 8 percent of children in Roma settlements, aged 36–59 months, attend an organised early childhood education months, attend an organised early childhood education programme (Table CD.1R). Urban-rural differentials programme (Table CD.1R). Urban-rural differentials are present — the figure is 10 percent in urban areas, are present — the figure is 10 percent in urban areas, compared to 4 percent in rural areas. Among children compared to 4 percent in rural areas. Among children aged 36–59 months, attendance to early childhood aged 36–59 months, attendance to early childhood education programmes is more prevalent among children education programmes is more prevalent among children whose mother has secondary education (25 percent). whose mother has secondary education (25 percent). No gender differentials exist, but a differential by No gender differentials exist, but a differential by socioeconomic status does, namely, that while about socioeconomic status does, namely, that while about every every eighth child from the richest and middle quintile eighth child from the richest and middle quintile attend such programmes, among poorer quintiles attend such programmes, among poorer quintiles only about one in 20 children attend early childhood only about one in 20 children attend early childhood education programmes. It should be noted that the education programmes. It should be noted that the proportions of children attending early childhood proportions of children attending early childhood education programmes at ages 36–47 months and 48–59 education programmes at ages 36–47 months and 48–59 months are 5 percent and 11 percent respectively.months are 5 percent and 11 percent respectively. Table CD.1R: Early childhood education, Roma Settlements, 2010 Percentage of children age 36–59 months who are attending an organized early childhood education programme   Percentage of children age 36–59 months currently attending early childhood education1 Number of children age 36–59 months Sex  Male 8.2 347 Female 8.2 305 Area  Urban 10.0 447 Rural 4.1 205 Age of child  36–47 months 5.0 305 48–59 months 11.0 347 Mother’s education  None 5.6 131 Primary 6.8 462 Secondary 24.5 55 Wealth index quintile  Poorest 4.5 168 Second 5.6 161 Middle 11.7 107 Fourth 9.5 113 Richest 13.1 102 Total 8.2 652 1 MICS indicator 6.7 Table CD.1R.A shows the reasons for non-attendace Table CD.1R.A shows the reasons for non-attendace at kindergarten of children aged 36-59 months. When at kindergarten of children aged 36-59 months. When looking into reasons for this low attendance, the opinion looking into reasons for this low attendance, the opinion that there is someone to take care of the child at home that there is someone to take care of the child at home is shared by 54 percent of parents/caretakers. On the is shared by 54 percent of parents/caretakers. On the other hand, access issues were named as the reasons for other hand, access issues were named as the reasons for non-attendance for 43 percent of children. Among these, non-attendance for 43 percent of children. Among these, 27 percent found cost the main obstacle to attendance. 27 percent found cost the main obstacle to attendance. This percentage grows to 39 percent for children of single This percentage grows to 39 percent for children of single mothers and among parents with only primary education, mothers and among parents with only primary education, and to 44 percent in the poorest quintile. In 23 percent and to 44 percent in the poorest quintile. In 23 percent the other reasons are mentioned.the other reasons are mentioned. MONITORING THE SITUATION OF CHILDREN AND WOMEN 143 MULTIPLE INDICATOR CLUSTER SURVEY 2010144 Table CD.1R.A: Early child development, Roma Settlements, 2010 Children aged 36–59 months — Reasons for not attending kindergarten Reasons for not attending kindergarten Parents’ attitudes Access problems Not much to learn in kindergarten Disabled Low level of service Poor treatment The child is taken care at home Parents unemployed Overcrowded facility Costly services Other expenses too high Sex  Male .6 .9 .0 .6 54.6 16.6 11.4 25.8 12.5 Female 2.5 .3 1.0 2.1 53.4 8.9 7.6 27.6 18.7 Area  Urban 2.0 .5 .7 1.7 57.8 14.5 11.0 23.8 11.8 Rural .5 .8 .0 .5 46.5 9.9 6.9 32.6 22.8 Age  36–47 months .7 .5 .5 1.2 57.0 13.6 10.0 22.7 14.7 48–59 months 2.2 .7 .4 1.4 51.4 12.4 9.3 30.4 16.1 Mother’s education  Primary 1.9 .6 .0 1.2 46.6 10.4 6.2 39.2 31.4 Secondary 1.5 .4 .7 1.5 56.4 14.0 10.0 24.1 11.2 Higher (.0) (2.5) (.0) (.0) (50.3) (10.2) (16.6) (16.9) (11.7) Father’s education  Primary .8 .0 .0 .8 38.6 16.8 13.5 38.8 26.2 Secondary 1.1 .7 .7 1.6 50.9 12.4 7.3 23.5 15.0 Higher 4.4 .0 .0 .6 69.2 12.6 12.2 25.2 7.8 Father not in household .0 1.3 .0 1.0 65.6 13.8 16.7 38.7 19.8 Wealth index quintile  Poorest 1.7 1.4 .8 2.4 43.6 12.6 7.4 44.2 35.4 Second .0 .0 .6 1.5 54.3 5.0 6.1 23.2 12.7 Middle 4.3 1.3 .0 .5 62.9 13.2 14.9 36.4 9.1 Fourth 2.0 .0 .0 .0 60.1 25.1 5.6 10.3 4.4 Richest .0 .0 .7 1.3 56.3 13.0 18.6 9.2 3.3 Total 1.5 .6 .5 1.3 54.1 13.0 9.6 26.7 15.4 ( ) Figures that are based on 25–49 unweighted cases indicates that the father’s involvement in such activities indicates that the father’s involvement in such activities was less than 2 activities. Fathers’ involvement with one or was less than 2 activities. Fathers’ involvement with one or more activities was 63 percent. Every tenth child was living more activities was 63 percent. Every tenth child was living in a household without their fathers.in a household without their fathers. For 67 percent of children under-five, an adult household For 67 percent of children under-five, an adult household member engaged in more than four activities that promote member engaged in more than four activities that promote learning and school readiness during the 3 days preceding learning and school readiness during the 3 days preceding the survey (Table CD.2R). The average number of activities the survey (Table CD.2R). The average number of activities that adults engaged in with children was 4. The table also that adults engaged in with children was 4. The table also MULTIPLE INDICATOR CLUSTER SURVEY 2010144 MONITORING THE SITUATION OF CHILDREN AND WOMEN 145 Parents’ attitudes Access problems Otherreasons Number of children 36–59 months old not attending kindergartenOther reasonsNo organized transport for children 3.9 22.3 56.5 45.0 22.3 319 3.2 24.7 55.7 39.8 24.7 280 .8 21.0 60.3 42.1 21.0 402 9.4 28.4 47.6 43.5 28.4 197 2.1 28.1 58.3 38.1 28.1 290 5.0 19.1 54.1 46.7 19.1 308 4.2 25.7 48.9 48.3 25.7 124 3.4 23.9 58.3 40.8 23.9 431 (4.2) (13.5) (52.8) (45.9) (13.5) 42 6.2 11.5 39.4 61.1 11.5 55 4.1 28.5 53.5 40.0 28.5 390 1.2 15.3 69.8 38.4 15.3 92 1.9 14.4 67.2 48.3 14.4 61 8.8 20.8 48.1 57.7 20.8 161 2.6 27.4 55.2 32.8 27.4 152 .3 14.6 64.7 43.2 14.6 95 2.8 31.0 61.0 42.7 31.0 102 .2 22.2 57.6 31.0 22.2 89 3.6 23.4 56.1 42.5 23.4 599 There are no gender differences in terms of adult There are no gender differences in terms of adult activities or fathers’ activities with children at all. But, activities or fathers’ activities with children at all. But, there are differences in adults engaged in learning there are differences in adults engaged in learning and school readiness activities with children between and school readiness activities with children between urban areas (74 percent), and rural areas (52 percent). urban areas (74 percent), and rural areas (52 percent). Adult engagement in activities with children was Adult engagement in activities with children was lowest for children whose fathers have no education lowest for children whose fathers have no education (41 percent), but that percentage increases according (41 percent), but that percentage increases according to the level of education (65 percent for primary, and to the level of education (65 percent for primary, and 89 percent for secondary education). The proportion 89 percent for secondary education). The proportion was 88 percent for children living in the households was 88 percent for children living in the households within the richest quintile, as opposed to 47 percent within the richest quintile, as opposed to 47 percent for those in the poorest quintile. Fathers’ involvement for those in the poorest quintile. Fathers’ involvement was greater in urban areas (69 percent) than in rural was greater in urban areas (69 percent) than in rural areas (49 percent).areas (49 percent). MONITORING THE SITUATION OF CHILDREN AND WOMEN 145 MULTIPLE INDICATOR CLUSTER SURVEY 2010146 Table CD.2R: Support for learning, Roma Settlements, 2010 Percentage of children age 36–59 months with whom an adult household member engaged in activities that promote learning and school readiness during the last three days Percentage of children age 36–59 months Mean number of activities Percentage of children not living with their natural father Number of children age 36–59 months With whom adult household members engaged in four or more activities1 With whom the father engaged in one or more activities2 Any adult household member engaged with the child The father engaged with the child Sex  Male 65.9 63.6 4.1 1.6 12.4 347 Female 68.7 61.2 4.0 1.7 7.2 305 Area  Urban 74.3 68.7 4.4 1.8 8.0 447 Rural 51.7 48.9 3.4 1.2 14.2 205 Age  36–47 months 73.8 62.0 4.4 1.7 13.2 305 48–59 months 61.4 62.9 3.8 1.6 7.1 347 Mother’s education  None 45.1 50.8 3.2 1.1 7.2 131 Primary 70.6 63.5 4.2 1.7 11.1 462 Secondary 89.0 79.1 5.1 2.5 7.6 55 Father’s education  None 41.2 58.3 3.1 1.4 na 56 Primary 64.9 65.0 3.9 1.7 na 424 Secondary 88.8 88.0 4.9 2.3 na 104 Father not in household 68.7 6.9 4.3 na na 65 Wealth index quintiles  Poorest 47.3 51.8 3.2 1.2 10.7 168 Second 63.2 61.8 3.9 1.8 10.1 161 Middle 75.3 57.7 4.4 1.3 12.3 107 Fourth 76.1 65.2 4.6 1.7 8.2 113 Richest 87.6 82.9 5.0 2.5 7.9 102 Total 67.2 62.5 4.1 1.6 9.9 652 1 MICS indicator 6.1 2 MICS Indicator 6.2 In Roma settlements, 23 percent of children aged between In Roma settlements, 23 percent of children aged between 0–59 months live in households where at least 3 children’s 0–59 months live in households where at least 3 children’s books are present (Table CD.3R), but only 11 percent have books are present (Table CD.3R), but only 11 percent have 10 or more books. There are some gender differentials. On 10 or more books. There are some gender differentials. On the one hand, 21 percent of male children have 3 or more the one hand, 21 percent of male children have 3 or more children’s books, and 9 percent have 10 or more. However, children’s books, and 9 percent have 10 or more. However, 25 percent of female children had 3 or more books, and 13 25 percent of female children had 3 or more books, and 13 percent had 10 or more children’s books.percent had 10 or more children’s books. Urban children appear to have slightly better access to Urban children appear to have slightly better access to children’s books than those living in rural households. children’s books than those living in rural households. The proportion of under-5 children who have 3 or more The proportion of under-5 children who have 3 or more children’s books is 29 percent in urban areas, compared to children’s books is 29 percent in urban areas, compared to 11 percent in rural areas. The presence of children’s books 11 percent in rural areas. The presence of children’s books is positively correlated with the child’s age; in the homes is positively correlated with the child’s age; in the homes of 31 percent of children aged between 24–59 months, of 31 percent of children aged between 24–59 months, there are 3 or more children’s books, while the figure is 10 there are 3 or more children’s books, while the figure is 10 percent for children aged between 0–23 months. percent for children aged between 0–23 months. MULTIPLE INDICATOR CLUSTER SURVEY 2010146 MONITORING THE SITUATION OF CHILDREN AND WOMEN 147 When children for whom there are 10 or more children’s When children for whom there are 10 or more children’s books or picture books are taken into account, only a small books or picture books are taken into account, only a small percentage of children in urban areas have 10 or more percentage of children in urban areas have 10 or more books (15 percent), and even less in rural areas (4 percent).books (15 percent), and even less in rural areas (4 percent). Table CD.3R: Learning materials, Roma Settlements, 2010 Percentage of children under age 5 by numbers of children’s books present in the household, and by playthings that child plays with Household has for the child: Child plays with: Two or more types of playthings2 Number of children under age 5 3 or more children’s books1 10 or more children’s books Homemade toys Toys from a shop/ manufactured toys Household objects/objects found outside Sex  Male 21.2 9.4 25.7 79.7 57.0 53.3 823 Female 25.2 12.9 29.6 77.0 58.0 55.5 781 Area  Urban 29.2 14.8 28.1 85.1 57.9 57.9 1084 Rural 10.5 3.5 26.7 64.5 56.6 47.0 520 Age  0–23 months 9.6 3.5 16.9 69.3 37.4 35.2 592 24–59 months 31.1 15.6 33.9 83.7 69.2 65.6 1012 Mother’s education  None 10.0 4.2 21.9 65.9 59.6 47.1 319 Primary 24.0 10.7 30.7 80.0 57.1 56.1 1111 Secondary 39.3 25.2 16.5 90.4 55.2 54.5 166 Wealth index quintiles Poorest 7.6 3.9 25.5 56.9 63.5 47.8 396 Second 14.7 5.7 29.4 79.5 58.5 57.7 380 Middle 25.3 9.1 30.6 85.5 58.4 58.4 288 Fourth 29.8 14.6 17.9 87.6 38.3 41.1 276 Richest 49.2 28.6 35.1 91.7 66.1 69.1 264 Total 23.1 11.1 27.6 78.4 57.5 54.4 1604 1 MICS indicator 6.3 2 MICS indicator 6.4 Table CD.3R also shows that 54 percent of children aged Table CD.3R also shows that 54 percent of children aged between 0–59 months had 2 or more types of playthings between 0–59 months had 2 or more types of playthings to play with in their homes. The playthings in MICS to play with in their homes. The playthings in MICS included included homemade toys (such as dolls and cars, or other homemade toys (such as dolls and cars, or other toys made toys made at home), toys that came from a store, and at home), toys that came from a store, and household household objects (such as pots and bowls) or objects and objects (such as pots and bowls) or objects and materials found outside the home (such as sticks, rocks, materials found outside the home (such as sticks, rocks, animal shells, or leaves). It is interesting to note that 78 animal shells, or leaves). It is interesting to note that 78 percent of children play with toys that come from a store. percent of children play with toys that come from a store. The proportion of children who have 2 or more types of The proportion of children who have 2 or more types of playthings is 53 percent among boys and 56 percent among playthings is 53 percent among boys and 56 percent among girls. There are some urban-rural differentials, namely, that girls. There are some urban-rural differentials, namely, that 58 percent of children have two or more types of playthings 58 percent of children have two or more types of playthings in urban areas, and 47 percent in rural areas. There are also in urban areas, and 47 percent in rural areas. There are also remarkable differentials in terms of mothers’ education remarkable differentials in terms of mothers’ education and socioeconomic status, and toys from stores are present and socioeconomic status, and toys from stores are present more often among children whose household has higher more often among children whose household has higher socioeconomic status or whose mother has higher education.socioeconomic status or whose mother has higher education. MONITORING THE SITUATION OF CHILDREN AND WOMEN 147 MULTIPLE INDICATOR CLUSTER SURVEY 2010148 Table CD.4R shows that 4 percent of children in Roma Table CD.4R shows that 4 percent of children in Roma settlements aged 0–59 months were left in the care of settlements aged 0–59 months were left in the care of other children younger than 10 years, and less than other children younger than 10 years, and less than 1 percent were left alone during the week preceding 1 percent were left alone during the week preceding the interview. Combining these two care indicators, it the interview. Combining these two care indicators, it is calculated that 5 percent of children were left with is calculated that 5 percent of children were left with inadequate care during the week preceding the survey, inadequate care during the week preceding the survey, either by being left alone or in the care of another child. either by being left alone or in the care of another child. There are small differences by background characteristics There are small differences by background characteristics related to leaving the child alone, in the care of another related to leaving the child alone, in the care of another child or with inadequate care in the past week.child or with inadequate care in the past week. Table CD.4R: Inadequate care, Roma Settlements, 2010 Percentage of children under age 5 left alone or left in the care of another child younger than 10 years of age for more than one hour at least once during the past week Percentage of children under age 5 Number of children under age 5Left alone in the past week Left in the care of another child younger than 10 years of age in the past week Left with inadequate care in the past week1 Sex Male 1.0 3.3 3.9 823 Female 1.9 5.0 5.5 781 Area  Urban 1.7 4.5 5.2 1084 Rural .9 3.2 3.7 520 Age  0–23 months .2 1.5 1.5 592 24–59 months 2.2 5.6 6.5 1012 Mother’s education  None 1.2 4.3 5.3 319 Primary 1.7 4.6 5.0 1111 Secondary .6 .8 1.4 166 Wealth index quintiles  Poorest 1.8 6.8 8.3 396 Second .5 3.6 3.6 380 Middle 1.1 1.6 2.4 288 Fourth .4 2.2 2.2 276 Richest 3.8 5.5 5.9 264 Total 1.4 4.1 4.7 1604 1 MICS indicator 6.5 MULTIPLE INDICATOR CLUSTER SURVEY 2010148 MONITORING THE SITUATION OF CHILDREN AND WOMEN 149 Early Childhood DevelopmentEarly Childhood Development Early child development is defined as an orderly, predictable Early child development is defined as an orderly, predictable process along a continuous path, in which a child learns to process along a continuous path, in which a child learns to handle more complicated levels of moving, thinking, speaking, handle more complicated levels of moving, thinking, speaking, feeling and relating to others. Physical growth, literacy and feeling and relating to others. Physical growth, literacy and numeracy skills, socio-emotional development and readiness numeracy skills, socio-emotional development and readiness to learn are vital domains of a child’s overall development, to learn are vital domains of a child’s overall development, which is the basis for overall human development.which is the basis for overall human development. A 10-item module that has been developed for the A 10-item module that has been developed for the MICS programme was used to calculate the Early Child MICS programme was used to calculate the Early Child Development Index (ECDI). This indicator is based on Development Index (ECDI). This indicator is based on benchmarks that children would be expected to have if they benchmarks that children would be expected to have if they are developing as the majority of children in that age group. are developing as the majority of children in that age group. The primary purpose of the ECDI is to inform public policy The primary purpose of the ECDI is to inform public policy regarding the developmental status of children in Serbia. regarding the developmental status of children in Serbia. Each of the 10 items is used in one of the four domains, Each of the 10 items is used in one of the four domains, to determine if children of age 36–59 months are to determine if children of age 36–59 months are developmentally on track in that domain. The domains developmentally on track in that domain. The domains in question are:in question are:  Literacy-numeracy: Children are identified as being Literacy-numeracy: Children are identified as being developmentally on track based on whether they can developmentally on track based on whether they can identify/name at least ten letters of the alphabet, whether identify/name at least ten letters of the alphabet, whether they can read at least four simple, popular words, and they can read at least four simple, popular words, and whether they know the name and recognize the symbols whether they know the name and recognize the symbols of all numbers from 1 to 10. If at least two of these are true, of all numbers from 1 to 10. If at least two of these are true, then the child is considered developmentally on track.then the child is considered developmentally on track.  Physical: If the child can pick up a small object with two Physical: If the child can pick up a small object with two fingers, like a stick or a rock from the ground and/or fingers, like a stick or a rock from the ground and/or the mother/caretaker does not indicate that the child is the mother/caretaker does not indicate that the child is sometimes too sick to play, then the child is regarded as sometimes too sick to play, then the child is regarded as being developmentally on track in the physical domain.being developmentally on track in the physical domain.  In the social-emotional domain, children are In the social-emotional domain, children are considered to be developmentally on track if two considered to be developmentally on track if two of the following is true: If the child gets along well of the following is true: If the child gets along well with other children, if the child does not kick, bite, with other children, if the child does not kick, bite, or hit other children, and if the child does not get or hit other children, and if the child does not get distracted easilydistracted easily  Learning: If the child follows simple directions on Learning: If the child follows simple directions on how to do something correctly and/or when given how to do something correctly and/or when given something to do, is able to do it independently, then something to do, is able to do it independently, then the child is considered to be developmentally on the child is considered to be developmentally on track in the learning domain.track in the learning domain. ECDI is then calculated as the percentage of children ECDI is then calculated as the percentage of children who are developmentally on track in at least three of who are developmentally on track in at least three of these four domains.these four domains. The results are presented in Table CD.5. In Serbia, The results are presented in Table CD.5. In Serbia, 94 percent of children aged 36–59 months are 94 percent of children aged 36–59 months are developmentally on track. There are no relevant developmentally on track. There are no relevant differentials among boys and girls. Looking at the differentials among boys and girls. Looking at the mother’s education, ECDI is 84 percent for children mother’s education, ECDI is 84 percent for children whose mother has primary education and 96 percent whose mother has primary education and 96 percent for those whose mothers have higher education.for those whose mothers have higher education. The analysis of the four domains of child development The analysis of the four domains of child development shows that 99 percent of children are on track in shows that 99 percent of children are on track in the learning domain, 100 percent in the physical, the learning domain, 100 percent in the physical, 31 percent in the literacy-numeracy and 94 percent 31 percent in the literacy-numeracy and 94 percent in the social-in the social-emotional domains. In each individual emotional domains. In each individual domain the higher domain the higher score is associated with children score is associated with children attending early childhood education programmes, attending early childhood education programmes, older children, and among girls. older children, and among girls. MULTIPLE INDICATOR CLUSTER SURVEY 2010150 Table CD.5: Early child development index, Serbia, 2010 Percentage of children age 36–59 months who are developmentally on track in literacy-numeracy, physical, social-emotional, and learning domains, and the early child development index score Percentage of children age 36–59 months who are developmentally on track for indicated domains Early child development index score1 Number of children age 36–59 monthsLiteracy- numeracy Physical Social-Emotional Learning Sex  Male 30.6 99.8 92.9 98.8 93.9 655 Female 31.8 99.8 95.3 98.8 94.7 751 Region  Belgrade 35.4 99.4 92.9 97.0 90.5 280 Vojvodina 31.9 99.8 94.8 98.4 94.2 420 Sumadija and Western Serbia 24.2 100.0 94.3 99.7 93.9 380 Southern and Eastern Serbia 35.1 100.0 94.5 100.0 98.2 326 Area  Urban 37.7 99.9 95.1 98.9 94.8 763 Rural 23.5 99.7 93.2 98.7 93.7 644 Age  36–47 months 14.9 99.7 94.3 98.8 93.7 663 48–59 months 45.8 99.9 94.1 98.9 94.9 743 Early childhood education programmes attendance  Attending early childhood education programmes 39.9 99.9 96.3 98.9 96.5 617 Not attending early childhood education programmes 24.4 99.8 92.5 98.8 92.6 790 Mother’s education  Primary 10.8 99.0 85.1 97.6 83.7 185 Secondary 34.4 99.9 95.1 99.4 96.0 866 Higher 34.9 100.0 97.0 98.0 96.0 346 Wealth index quintiles  Poorest 19.5 99.7 89.4 98.4 88.3 240 Second 25.2 100.0 95.1 98.4 95.3 314 Middle 26.7 99.7 94.5 100.0 96.8 265 Fourth 43.1 99.8 93.5 99.2 94.4 277 Richest 39.7 99.8 97.3 98.3 95.8 311 Total 31.2 99.8 94.2 98.8 94.3 1406 1 MICS indicator 6.6 MONITORING THE SITUATION OF CHILDREN AND WOMEN 151 Early Childhood Development in Roma SettlementsEarly Childhood Development in Roma Settlements Table CD.5R: Early child development index, Roma Settlements, 2010 Percentage of children age 36–59 months who are developmentally on track in literacy-numeracy, physical, social-emotional, and learning domains, and the early child development index score Percentage of children age 36–59 months who are developmentally on track for indicated domains Early child development index score1 Number of children age 36–59 months Literacy-numeracy Physical Social-Emotional Learning Sex  Male 8.8 99.2 87.4 98.3 86.3 347 Female 12.4 98.7 90.9 97.8 90.6 305 Area  Urban 13.3 98.7 89.2 98.1 88.8 447 Rural 4.5 99.5 88.6 98.0 87.2 205 Age  36–47 months 8.7 98.6 87.6 97.6 86.1 305 48–59 months 12.1 99.2 90.3 98.5 90.2 347 Early childhood education programmes attendance  Attending early childhood education programmes 23.1 100.0 96.9 99.2 98.8 53 Not attending early childhood education programmes 9.4 98.9 88.3 98.0 87.4 599 Mother’s education  None 12.9 98.5 89.2 96.8 87.6 131 Primary 7.7 99.2 88.0 98.4 87.7 462 Secondary 28.9 98.1 96.2 98.1 94.6 55 Wealth index quintiles Poorest 2.9 97.6 85.3 95.7 82.5 168 Second 12.6 99.5 90.0 98.8 90.9 161 Middle 10.4 99.0 82.1 98.5 80.9 107 Fourth 14.2 100.0 95.6 98.8 96.1 113 Richest 15.5 99.2 93.6 99.5 92.9 102 Total 10.5 98.9 89.0 98.1 88.3 652 1 MICS indicator 6.6 In Roma settlements, 88 percent of children aged 36–59 In Roma settlements, 88 percent of children aged 36–59 months are developmentally on track. There are some months are developmentally on track. There are some differentials among boys and girls e.g. 86 is the early child differentials among boys and girls e.g. 86 is the early child development index score for male, and 91 for female, children. development index score for male, and 91 for female, children. The ECDI index is higher for children that were attending The ECDI index is higher for children that were attending early childhood education programmes (99). Looking at the early childhood education programmes (99). Looking at the mothers’ education, ECDI is mothers’ education, ECDI is 88 percent for children whose 88 percent for children whose mother has primary education and 95 percent for children mother has primary education and 95 percent for children whose mother has secondary education. The index ranges whose mother has secondary education. The index ranges from 83 for the poorest quintile to 93 for the richest quintile.from 83 for the poorest quintile to 93 for the richest quintile. Analysis of the four domains of child development Analysis of the four domains of child development shows that 98 percent of children are on track in shows that 98 percent of children are on track in the learning domain, 99 percent in the physical, 11 the learning domain, 99 percent in the physical, 11 percent in the literacy-numeracy and 89 percent percent in the literacy-numeracy and 89 percent in the social-emotional domains. In almost each in the social-emotional domains. In almost each individual domain the higher score is associated with individual domain the higher score is associated with children living in the richest quintile, with children children living in the richest quintile, with children attending early childhood education programmes attending early childhood education programmes and older children. and older children. MONITORING THE SITUATION OF CHILDREN AND WOMEN 151 MULTIPLE INDICATOR CLUSTER SURVEY 2010152 Literacy among Young WomenLiteracy among Young Women and Menand Men One of the World Fit for Children goals is to assure adult One of the World Fit for Children goals is to assure adult literacy. Adult literacy is also an MDG indicator, relating literacy. Adult literacy is also an MDG indicator, relating to both men and women. In this MICS study, literacy was to both men and women. In this MICS study, literacy was assessed on the ability of women and men to read a short assessed on the ability of women and men to read a short simple statement, or on school attendance. simple statement, or on school attendance. Literacy rates are presented in Tables ED.1 and ED.1M. Literacy rates are presented in Tables ED.1 and ED.1M. Findings indicate that over 99 percent of women and men Findings indicate that over 99 percent of women and men aged 15–24 years in Serbia are literate and that literacy aged 15–24 years in Serbia are literate and that literacy status does not vary by place of residence. However, status does not vary by place of residence. However, among the poorest quintile only 97 percent are literate, among the poorest quintile only 97 percent are literate, compared to 100 percent in the richest quintile. Of those compared to 100 percent in the richest quintile. Of those who stated that primary school was their highest level who stated that primary school was their highest level of education, 94 percent of both women and men were of education, 94 percent of both women and men were actually able to read the statement shown to them. actually able to read the statement shown to them. X LITERACY LITERACY AND EDUCATIONAND EDUCATION Table ED.1: Literacy among young women, Serbia, 2010 Percentage of women age 15–24 years who are literate   Percentage literate1 Percentage not known Number of women age 15–24 years Region Belgrade 99.7 .0 321 Vojvodina 99.7 .1 317 Sumadija and Western Serbia 98.8 .0 392 Southern and Eastern Serbia 99.2 .0 333 Area  Urban 99.5 .0 814 Rural 99.0 .0 549 Education  Primary 94.0 .3 112 Secondary 100.0 .0 789 Higher 100.0 .0 457 Age  15–19 99.5 .0 659 20–24 99.1 .0 705 Wealth index quintile Poorest 97.1 .2 199 Second 99.3 .0 276 Middle 99.3 .0 267 Fourth 100.0 .0 287 Richest 100.0 .0 334 Total 99.3 .0 1364 1 MICS indicator 7.1; MDG indicator 2.3 MONITORING THE SITUATION OF CHILDREN AND WOMEN 153 Table ED.1M: Literacy among young men, Serbia, 2010 Percentage of men age 15–24 years who are literate   Percentage literate1 Percentage not known Number of men age 15–24 years Region Belgrade 98.7 1.1 192 Vojvodina 99.7 .0 263 Sumadija and Western Serbia 100.0 .0 280 Southern and Eastern Serbia 99.3 .4 242 Area  Urban 99.8 .0 556 Rural 99.1 .8 422 Education  Primary 94.3 4.5 72 Secondary 100.0 .0 680 Higher 100.0 .0 224 Age  15–19 99.9 .0 465 20–24 99.2 .6 512 Wealth index quintile  Poorest 96.6 2.2 145 Second 100.0 .0 186 Middle 100.0 .0 214 Fourth 100.0 .0 217 Richest 100.0 .0 215 Total 99.5 .3 977 1 MICS indicator 7.1; MDG indicator 2.3 MULTIPLE INDICATOR CLUSTER SURVEY 2010154 Literacy among Young Women and MenLiteracy among Young Women and Men in Roma Settlementsin Roma Settlements These literacy rates are presented in Tables ED.1R and These literacy rates are presented in Tables ED.1R and ED.1R.M. Findings indicate that the literacy level of ED.1R.M. Findings indicate that the literacy level of the population in Roma settlements is generally lower the population in Roma settlements is generally lower than for the national sample, as only slightly over three than for the national sample, as only slightly over three quarters of Roma aged 15–24 years in Roma settlements quarters of Roma aged 15–24 years in Roma settlements are literate (77 percent of women and 78 percent of men). are literate (77 percent of women and 78 percent of men). Literacy status varies by all observed categories. The worst Literacy status varies by all observed categories. The worst situation is among the poorest quintile where only about situation is among the poorest quintile where only about half are literate (49 percent of women and 46 percent of half are literate (49 percent of women and 46 percent of men), compared to both 89 percent respectively in the men), compared to both 89 percent respectively in the richest quintile. Of those who stated that primary school richest quintile. Of those who stated that primary school was their highest level of education, 83 percent of women was their highest level of education, 83 percent of women and 76 percent of men were actually able to read the and 76 percent of men were actually able to read the statement shown to them. Comparing the 15–19 age group statement shown to them. Comparing the 15–19 age group with the 20–24 age group, younger women seem to have a with the 20–24 age group, younger women seem to have a higher literacy rate, (by approximately eight percent) but higher literacy rate, (by approximately eight percent) but unfortunately not younger men (who have a four percent unfortunately not younger men (who have a four percent lower rate than the 20–24 age group).lower rate than the 20–24 age group). Table ED.1R: Literacy among young women, Roma Settlements, 2010 Percentage of women age 15–24 years who are literate   Percentage literate1 Percentage not known Number of women age 15–24 years Area  Urban 77.9 .0 526 Rural 73.6 .2 256 Education  None 19.9 .4 115 Primary 83.2 .0 550 Secondary 100.0 .0 110 Age  15–19 80.0 .0 429 20–24 72.2 .2 354 Wealth index quintile  Poorest 49.2 .0 157 Second 75.8 .4 162 Middle 76.1 .0 158 Fourth 92.9 .0 165 Richest 88.8 .0 142 Total 76.5 .1 783 1 MICS indicator 7.1; MDG indicator 2.3 Table ED.1R.M: Literacy among young men, Roma Settlements, 2010 Percentage of men age 15–24 years who are literate   Percentage literate1 Percentage not known Number of men age 15–24 years Area Urban 80.7 .3 399 Rural 71.8 .2 189 Education  None (10.3) (0.0) 38 Primary 75.9 .4 400 Secondary 100.0 .0 146 Age  15–19 75.7 .5 295 20–24 80.0 .1 293 Wealth index quintile  Poorest 46.4 .0 130 Second 80.8 .0 126 Middle 90.3 .0 121 Fourth 88.0 .3 113 Richest 88.7 1.4 98 Total 77.8 .3 588 1 MICS indicator 7.1; MDG indicator 2.3 ( ) Figures that are based on 25–49 unweighted cases MULTIPLE INDICATOR CLUSTER SURVEY 2010154 MONITORING THE SITUATION OF CHILDREN AND WOMEN 155 School ReadinessSchool Readiness Attendance at pre-school in an organised learning or child Attendance at pre-school in an organised learning or child education programme is important for preparing children education programme is important for preparing children for school. Table ED.2 shows the proportion of children in for school. Table ED.2 shows the proportion of children in the first grade of primary school who had attended pre-the first grade of primary school who had attended pre- school the previous year. Since the 2006/07 school year, all school the previous year. Since the 2006/07 school year, all children in Serbia have to attend a 6 months compulsory children in Serbia have to attend a 6 months compulsory Preparatory Preschool Programme (PPP), which has been Preparatory Preschool Programme (PPP), which has been extended to 9 months from 2009. Overall, 97 percent of extended to 9 months from 2009. Overall, 97 percent of children who are currently attending the first grade of children who are currently attending the first grade of primary school attended pre-school the previous year. primary school attended pre-school the previous year. No important variations were observed among different No important variations were observed among different categories.categories. Table ED.2: School readiness, Serbia, 2010 Percentage of children attending first grade of primary school who attended pre-school the previous year   Percentage of children attending first grade who attended preschool in previous year1 Number of children attending first grade of primary school Sex Male 94.4 87 Female 99.2 117 Region Belgrade 95.7 31 Vojvodina 98.4 53 Sumadija and Western Serbia 100.0 63 Southern and Eastern Serbia 93.7 57 Area Urban 97.7 95 Rural 96.7 109 Mother’s education  Primary 97.8 32 Secondary 96.3 120 Higher 99.6 50 Wealth index quintile  Poorest 94.8 32 Second 95.0 57 Middle 100.0 37 Fourth 97.8 42 Richest 99.1 36 Total 97.2 204 1 MICS indicator 7.2 MULTIPLE INDICATOR CLUSTER SURVEY 2010156 School Readiness in Roma SettlementsSchool Readiness in Roma Settlements Table ED.2R shows the proportion of Roma children Table ED.2R shows the proportion of Roma children in the first grade of primary school that had attended in the first grade of primary school that had attended pre-school the previous year. The data shows that pre-school the previous year. The data shows that 78 percent of children in Roma settlements who are 78 percent of children in Roma settlements who are currently attending the first grade of primary school currently attending the first grade of primary school attended pre-school the previous year. While disparities attended pre-school the previous year. While disparities are not visible between boys and girls (79 and 77 percent are not visible between boys and girls (79 and 77 percent respectively), they are present between rural and urban respectively), they are present between rural and urban areas (65 as against 83 percent).areas (65 as against 83 percent). Table ED.2R: School readiness, Roma Settlements, 2010 Percentage of children attending first grade of primary school who attended pre-school the previous year   Percentage of children attending first grade who attended preschool in previous year1 Number of children attending first grade of primary school Sex  Male 78.7 117 Female 77.1 95 Area  Urban 83.4 150 Rural 65.0 62 Mother’s education  None 61.7 47 Primary 81.3 138 Secondary (*) 27 Wealth index quintile  Poorest 54.4 47 Second (75.6) 48 Middle (89.2) 48 Fourth (93.7) 36 Richest (82.2) 32 Total 78.0 212 1 MICS indicator 7.2 ( ) Figures that are based on 25–49 unweighted cases (*) Figures that are based on less than 25 unweighted cases MULTIPLE INDICATOR CLUSTER SURVEY 2010156 MONITORING THE SITUATION OF CHILDREN AND WOMEN 157 Primary and Secondary School Primary and Secondary School ParticipationParticipation Universal access to basic education and the achievement Universal access to basic education and the achievement of primary education by the world’s children is one of primary education by the world’s children is one of the most important Millennium Development and of the most important Millennium Development and A World Fit for Children Goals. Education is a vital A World Fit for Children Goals. Education is a vital prerequisite for combating poverty, empowering women, prerequisite for combating poverty, empowering women, protecting children from hazardous and exploitative protecting children from hazardous and exploitative labour and sexual exploitation, promoting human labour and sexual exploitation, promoting human rights and democracy, protecting the environment, and rights and democracy, protecting the environment, and influencing population growth. influencing population growth. The indicators for primary and secondary school The indicators for primary and secondary school attendance include:attendance include:  Net intake rate in primary education Net intake rate in primary education  Primary school net attendance ratio (adjusted) Primary school net attendance ratio (adjusted)  Secondary school net attendance ratio (adjusted) Secondary school net attendance ratio (adjusted)  Female to male education ratio (or gender parity Female to male education ratio (or gender parity index — GPI) in primary and secondary schoolsindex — GPI) in primary and secondary schools The indicators of school progression include:The indicators of school progression include:  The number of children reaching the last grade The number of children reaching the last grade of primary school of primary school  Primary completion rate Primary completion rate  Transition rate to secondary school Transition rate to secondary school Net intake in primary education measures the number Net intake in primary education measures the number of children of school entry age who entered first grade of of children of school entry age who entered first grade of primary school in relation to the total number of children primary school in relation to the total number of children of school entry age. In Serbia, children who are 6 and a of school entry age. In Serbia, children who are 6 and a half years or older in September of the current school half years or older in September of the current school year, are obliged to enter first grade.year, are obliged to enter first grade. Of those children who are of primary school entry Of those children who are of primary school entry age, 95 percent are attending the first grade of age, 95 percent are attending the first grade of primary school (Table ED.3). Sex differentials do primary school (Table ED.3). Sex differentials do exist, however, as 98 percent of girls enter first grade exist, however, as 98 percent of girls enter first grade compared to 91 percent of boys. Children’s entry to compared to 91 percent of boys. Children’s entry to primary school is timelier in urban areas (97 percent) primary school is timelier in urban areas (97 percent) than in rural areas (93 percent). The net intake rate than in rural areas (93 percent). The net intake rate of 84 percent among children living in households of 84 percent among children living in households within the poorest quintile should be treated with within the poorest quintile should be treated with caution due to the small number of cases. caution due to the small number of cases. Table ED.3: Primary school entry, Serbia, 2010 Percentage of children of primary school entry age entering grade 1 (net intake rate)   Percentage of children of primary school entry age entering grade 11 Number of children of primary school entry age Sex Male 91.2 99 Female 97.9 121 Region Belgrade 90.7 34 Vojvodina 98.5 54 Sumadija and Western Serbia 95.5 67 Southern and Eastern Serbia 93.5 65 Area  Urban 96.5 111 Rural 93.2 109 Mother’s education  Primary 96.1 31 Secondary 93.5 133 Higher 100.0 53 Wealth index quintile  Poorest 83.6 30 Second 99.3 54 Middle 93.8 46 Fourth 100.0 46 Richest 92.9 44 Total 94.9 220 1 MICS indicator 7.3 MULTIPLE INDICATOR CLUSTER SURVEY 2010158 Table ED.4 provides the percentage of children of Table ED.4 provides the percentage of children of primary school age (7 to 14 years) who are attending primary school age (7 to 14 years) who are attending primary or secondary schoolprimary or secondary school1616. The majority of children . The majority of children of primary school age are attending school (99 percent). of primary school age are attending school (99 percent). Lower attendance is present among children within the Lower attendance is present among children within the poorest quintile (96 percent). Differences within other poorest quintile (96 percent). Differences within other categories (urban/rural, regional or as per mother’s categories (urban/rural, regional or as per mother’s education) are not visible.education) are not visible. 16 Ratios presented in this table are “adjusted” since they include not only primary school attendance, but also secondary school attendance in the numerator. Table ED.4: Primary school attendance, Serbia, 2010 Percentage of children of primary school age attending primary or secondary school (adjusted net attendance ratio)   Male Female Total Net attendance ratio (adjusted) Number of children Net attendance ratio (adjusted) Number of children Net attendance ratio (adjusted)1 Number of children Region  Belgrade 95.6 139 98.6 138 97.1 277 Vojvodina 99.5 186 99.9 209 99.7 396 Sumadija and Western Serbia 98.6 220 99.3 232 99.0 452 Southern and Eastern Serbia 97.8 256 99.1 203 98.4 459 Area  Urban 98.5 433 99.4 416 99.0 850 Rural 97.6 369 99.1 366 98.3 735 Reached age in year 2010  7 91.5 99 97.9 121 95.0 220 8 98.9 88 98.8 112 98.8 199 9 99.7 110 100.0 100 99.9 209 10 97.1 97 98.3 96 97.7 193 11 99.8 108 99.9 102 99.8 210 12 97.8 92 100.0 73 98.8 166 13 99.8 111 100.0 89 99.9 200 14 99.4 97 100.0 90 99.7 187 Mother’s education  Primary 99.1 157 98.6 128 98.9 286 Secondary 97.3 456 99.5 497 98.5 953 Higher 100.0 174 99.9 152 100.0 326 Wealth index quintile  Poorest 95.4 156 97.2 127 96.2 283 Second 99.7 173 99.9 155 99.8 328 Middle 98.0 151 99.9 170 99.0 321 Fourth 99.7 165 99.9 158 99.8 324 Richest 97.2 156 99.1 172 98.2 329 Total 98.1 802 99.3 782 98.7 1584 1 MICS indicator 7.4; MDG indicator 2.1 MONITORING THE SITUATION OF CHILDREN AND WOMEN 159 The secondary school net attendance rate is presented The secondary school net attendance rate is presented in Table ED.5in Table ED.51717. Lower attendance rates are registered at . Lower attendance rates are registered at the start of secondary education which is not compulsory the start of secondary education which is not compulsory in Serbia. More dramatic than in primary school in Serbia. More dramatic than in primary school (where only one percent of children are not attending (where only one percent of children are not attending 17 Ratios presented in this table are “adjusted” since they include not only secondary school attendance, but also attendance at higher levels in the numerator. school at all) is the fact that 10 percent of children of school at all) is the fact that 10 percent of children of secondary school age are not attending secondary school secondary school age are not attending secondary school — 2 percent are attending primary school instead of — 2 percent are attending primary school instead of secondary school, while the remaining 8 percent are not secondary school, while the remaining 8 percent are not attending school at all. attending school at all. Table ED.5: Secondary school attendance, Serbia, 2010 Percentage of children of secondary school age attending secondary school or higher (adjusted net attendance ratio) and percentage of children attending primary school   Male Female Total Net attendance ratio (adjusted)1 Percent attending primary school Number of children Net attendance ratio (adjusted)1 Percent attending primary school Number of children Net attendance ratio (adjusted)1 Percent attending primary school Number of children Region Belgrade 90.5 5.3 79 95.9 .6 90 93.4 2.8 169 Vojvodina 84.8 .6 105 91.3 1.9 122 88.3 1.3 228 Sumadija and Western Serbia 87.9 1.4 123 91.2 2.8 140 89.7 2.2 263 Southern and Eastern Serbia 90.1 1.6 131 83.6 3.3 111 87.1 2.4 242 Area  Urban 90.6 2.6 244 94.7 2.0 247 92.7 2.3 491 Rural 85.3 1.2 195 85.4 2.6 216 85.3 1.9 410 Reached age in year 2010  15 90.6 6.1 98 91.0 8.0 130 90.8 7.2 228 16 94.0 2.7 92 94.1 .0 98 94.1 1.3 190 17 91.0 .0 139 90.9 .0 109 91.0 .0 248 18 78.0 .3 111 86.2 .0 125 82.3 .1 236 Mother’s education  Primary 73.6 7.0 70 74.3 12.5 63 73.9 9.6 133 Secondary 98.7 1.1 160 98.6 .1 179 98.7 .6 339 Higher 97.8 2.2 80 (100.0) (0.0) 52 98.7 1.3 132 Mother not in household (*) (*) 27 78.9 .6 54 83.7 .4 81 Wealth index quintile  Poorest 61.7 6.0 87 59.2 10.5 63 60.6 7.9 151 Second (94.7) (0.0) 66 88.9 .0 88 91.4 .0 153 Middle 95.0 .0 86 98.6 .1 112 97.0 .1 197 Fourth 95.8 .0 112 96.0 .0 97 95.9 .0 209 Richest 93.6 4.0 88 96.5 3.5 103 95.2 3.8 191 Total 88.3 2.0 439 90.3 2.3 463 89.3 2.1 901 1 MICS indicator 7.5 ( ) Figures that are based on 25–49 unweighted cases (*) Figures that are based on less than 25 unweighted cases MULTIPLE INDICATOR CLUSTER SURVEY 2010160 The percentage of children entering first grade who The percentage of children entering first grade who eventually reach the last grade of primary school is eventually reach the last grade of primary school is presented in Table ED.6. In Serbia, grade 8, which is the presented in Table ED.6. In Serbia, grade 8, which is the last grade of primary education, corresponds to ISCED last grade of primary education, corresponds to ISCED 2 level. For global comparison purposes ISCED tables 2 level. For global comparison purposes ISCED tables can be found in Appendix G. Of all the children starting can be found in Appendix G. Of all the children starting grade one, the majority (99 percent) will eventually reach grade one, the majority (99 percent) will eventually reach the last grade. Notice that this number includes children the last grade. Notice that this number includes children who repeat grades but eventually reach the last grade.who repeat grades but eventually reach the last grade. Table ED.6: Children reaching last grade of primary school, Serbia, 2010 Percentage of children entering first grade of primary school who eventually reach the last grade of primary school (Survival rate to last grade of primary school) Percent attending grade 1 last school year who are in grade 2 this school year Percent attending grade 2 last school year who are attending grade 3 this school year Percent attending grade 3 last school year who are attending grade 4 this school year Percent attending grade 4 last school year who are attending grade 5 this school year Percent attending grade 5 last school year who are attending grade 6 this school year Percent attending grade 6 last school year who are attending grade 7 this school year Percent attending grade 7 last school year who are attending grade 8 this school year Percent who reach grade 8 of those who enter grade 11 Sex Male 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 99.8 98.7 99.4 97.9 Female 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 Region  Belgrade 100.0 100.0 (100.0) (100.0) (100.0) (100.0) (100.0) (100.0) Vojvodina 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 99.7 97.1 (98.9) (95.7) Sumadija and Western Serbia 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 (100.0) (100.0) Southern and Eastern Serbia 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 (100.0) (100.0) (100.0) (100.0) Area Urban 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 99.8 98.6 100.0 98.4 Rural 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 99.2 99.2 Mother’s education Primary 100.0 (100.0) (100.0) (100.0) (100.0) (100.0) (98.5) (93.8) Secondary 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 Higher 100.0 100.0 100.0 (100.0) (100.0) (100.0) (100.0) (100.0) Wealth index quintile Poorest 100.0 100.0 (100.0) (100.0) (100.0) (94.8) (98.4) (93.3) Second 100.0 100.0 (100.0) (100.0) (100.0) (100.0) (100.0) (100.0) Middle 100.0 100.0 (100.0) (100.0) (99.4) 100.0 (100.0) (99.4) Fourth 100.0 (100.0) 100.0 (100.0) (100.0) (100.0) (100.0) (100.0) Richest 100.0 100.0 100.0 (100.0) (100.0) (100.0) (100.0) (100.0) Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 99.9 99.3 99.7 98.9 1 MICS indicator 7.6; MDG indicator 2.2 ( ) Figures that are based on 25–49 unweighted cases MONITORING THE SITUATION OF CHILDREN AND WOMEN 161 The gross primary school completion rate and transition The gross primary school completion rate and transition rate to secondary education are presented in Table ED.7. rate to secondary education are presented in Table ED.7. The primary school completion rate is the ratio of the total The primary school completion rate is the ratio of the total number of students, regardless of age, entering the last number of students, regardless of age, entering the last grade of primary school for the first time, to the number grade of primary school for the first time, to the number of children of the primary school graduation age at the of children of the primary school graduation age at the beginning of the current (or most recent) school year. beginning of the current (or most recent) school year. Table ED.7: Primary school completion and transition to secondary school, Serbia, 2010 Primary school completion rates and transition rate to secondary school   Primary school completion rate1 Number of children of primary school completion age Transition rate to secondary school2 Number of children who were in the last grade of primary school the previous year Sex  Male 100.3 97 98.6 97 Female 108.3 90 97.7 125 Region  Belgrade (104.7) 38 (99.3) 35 Vojvodina (108.2) 52 95.7 66 Sumadija and Western Serbia (113.5) 40 98.4 69 Southern and Eastern Serbia (93.3) 56 (100.0) 52 Area  Urban 104.2 108 99.4 125 Rural 104.1 79 96.4 97 Mother’s education  Primary (105.4) 40 (94.0) 47 Secondary 100.4 109 99.8 125 Higher (109.9) 34 (*) 37 Wealth index quintile  Poorest (94.6) 40 (89.2) 39 Second (*) 28 (100.0) 32 Middle (100.0) 34 (100.0) 54 Fourth (103.0) 36 (100.0) 60 Richest (115.2) 49 (100.0) 37 Total 104.1 187 98.1 222 1 MICS indicator 7.7 2 MICS indicator 7.8 ( ) Figures that are based on 25–49 unweighted cases (*) Figures that are based on less than 25 unweighted cases At the time of the survey, the At the time of the survey, the gross primary school gross primary school completion ratecompletion rate was 104 percent. Furthermore, 98 was 104 percent. Furthermore, 98 percent of children that successfully completed the last percent of children that successfully completed the last grade of primary school were found at the time of the grade of primary school were found at the time of the survey to be attending the first grade of secondary school.survey to be attending the first grade of secondary school. However, for the purposes of analysis, the However, for the purposes of analysis, the net primary net primary school completion rateschool completion rate is a much more relevant is a much more relevant indicator for Serbia. It is the ratio of the total number indicator for Serbia. It is the ratio of the total number of students of primary school graduation age entering of students of primary school graduation age entering the last grade of primary school for the first time, to the last grade of primary school for the first time, to MULTIPLE INDICATOR CLUSTER SURVEY 2010162 the number of children of primary school graduation the number of children of primary school graduation age at the beginning of the current (or most recent) age at the beginning of the current (or most recent) school year. school year. The net primary school completion rate and transition The net primary school completion rate and transition rate to secondary school are presented in Table ED.7A. rate to secondary school are presented in Table ED.7A. Net primary school completion rate is 92 percent.Net primary school completion rate is 92 percent. Table ED.7A: Net primary school completion and transition to secondary school, Serbia, 2010 Net primary school completion rates and transition rate to secondary school Net primary school completion rate1 Number of children of primary school completion age Transition rate to secondary school2 Number of children who were in the last grade of prim ary school the previous year Sex  Male 89.0 97 98.6 97 Female 95.2 90 97.7 125 Region  Belgrade (99.2) 38 (99.3) 35 Vojvodina (94.5) 52 95.7 66 Sumadija and Western Serbia (95.2) 40 98.4 69 Southern and E astern Serbia (82.4) 56 (100.0) 52 Area  Urban 94.8 108 99.4 125 Rural 88.1 79 96.4 97 Mother’s education  Primary (75.0) 40 (94.0) 47 Secondary 96.7 109 99.8 125 Higher (96.8) 34 (*) 37 Wealth index quintile  Poorest (72.1) 40 (89.2) 39 Second (*) 28 (100.0) 32 Middle (100.0) 34 (100.0) 54 Fourth (97.0) 36 (100.0) 60 Richest (99.8) 49 (100.0) 37 Total 92.0 187 98.1 222 1 MICS indicator 7.7 2 MICS indicator 7.8 ( ) Figures that are based on 25–49 unweighted cases (*) Figures that are based on less than 25 unweighted cases The ratio of girls to boys attending primary and The ratio of girls to boys attending primary and secondary education is provided in Table ED.8. These secondary education is provided in Table ED.8. These ratios are better known as the Gender Parity Index ratios are better known as the Gender Parity Index (GPI). Notice that the ratios included here are obtained (GPI). Notice that the ratios included here are obtained from net from net attendance ratios rather than gross attendance attendance ratios rather than gross attendance ratios. The ratios. The latter ratios provide an erroneous latter ratios provide an erroneous description of the GPI mainly because in most cases description of the GPI mainly because in most cases the majority of over-aged children attending primary the majority of over-aged children attending primary school tend to be boys. Table ED.8 shows that gender school tend to be boys. Table ED.8 shows that gender parity for primary school is 1.01, and 1.02 for secondary parity for primary school is 1.01, and 1.02 for secondary school, indicating no significant differences in the school, indicating no significant differences in the attendance of girls and boys.attendance of girls and boys. MONITORING THE SITUATION OF CHILDREN AND WOMEN 163 Table ED.8: Education gender parity, Serbia, 2010 Ratio of adjusted net attendance ratios of girls to boys, in primary and secondary school   Primary school adjusted net attendance ratio (NAR), girls Primary school adjusted net attendance ratio (NAR), boys Gender parity index (GPI) for primary school adjusted NAR1 Secondary school adjusted net attendance ratio (NAR), girls Secondary school adjusted net attendance ratio (NAR), boys Gender parity index (GPI) for secondary school adjusted NAR2 Region Belgrade 98.6 95.6 1.03 95.9 90.5 1.06 Vojvodina 99.9 99.5 1.00 91.3 84.8 1.08 Sumadija and Western Serbia 99.3 98.6 1.01 91.2 87.9 1.04 Southern and Eastern Serbia 99.1 97.8 1.01 83.6 90.1 .93 Area  Urban 99.4 98.5 1.01 94.7 90.6 1.04 Rural 99.1 97.6 1.02 85.4 85.3 1.00 Mother’s education  Primary 98.6 99.1 .99 74.3 73.6 1.01 Secondary 99.5 97.3 1.02 98.6 98.7 1.00 Higher 99.9 100.0 1.00 (100.0) 97.8 (1.02) Mother not in household – – – 78.9 (*) (*) Wealth index quintile  Poorest 97.2 95.4 1.02 59.2 61.7 .96 Second 99.9 99.7 1.00 88.9 (94.7) (.94) Middle 99.9 98.0 1.02 98.6 95.0 1.04 Fourth 99.9 99.7 1.00 96.0 95.8 1.00 Richest 99.1 97.2 1.02 96.5 93.6 1.03 Total 99.3 98.1 1.01 90.3 88.3 1.02 1 MICS indicator 7.9; MDG indicator 3.1 2 MICS indicator 7.10; MDG indicator 3.1 ( ) Figures that are based on 25–49 unweighted cases (*) Figures that are based on less than 25 unweighted cases MULTIPLE INDICATOR CLUSTER SURVEY 2010164 Primary and Secondary School ParticipationPrimary and Secondary School Participation in Roma Settlementsin Roma Settlements Of those children living in Roma settlements who are of Of those children living in Roma settlements who are of primary school entry age, 91 percent attend the first grade primary school entry age, 91 percent attend the first grade of primary school (Table ED.3R). Sex differentials do exist as of primary school (Table ED.3R). Sex differentials do exist as 89 percent of girls enter first grade compared to 93 percent 89 percent of girls enter first grade compared to 93 percent of boys. Children’s participation in primary school is timelier of boys. Children’s participation in primary school is timelier in urban areas (92 percent) than in rural areas (89 percent). in urban areas (92 percent) than in rural areas (89 percent). The net intake rate is lower among children from the poorest The net intake rate is lower among children from the poorest quintile (76 percent) and among those whose mothers have quintile (76 percent) and among those whose mothers have no education (85 percent). However, these results should be no education (85 percent). However, these results should be treated with caution due to the small number of cases. treated with caution due to the small number of cases. Table ED.3R: Primary school entry, Roma Settlements, 2010 Percentage of children of primary school entry age entering grade 1 (net intake rate)   Percentage of children of primary school entry age entering grade 11 Number of children of primary school entry age Sex  Male 92.8 105 Female 88.7 89 Area  Urban 91.5 140 Rural 89.3 54 Mother’s education  None 84.9 44 Primary 91.8 122 Secondary (*) 28 Wealth index quintile  Poorest 76.3 44 Second (93.9) 45 Middle (96.0) 40 Fourth (100.0) 35 Richest (90.6) 31 Total 90.9 194 1 MICS indicator 7.3 ( ) Figures that are based on 25–49 unweighted cases (*) Figures that are based on less than 25 unweighted cases 18 Ratios presented in this table are “adjusted” since they include not only primary school attendance, but also secondary school attendance in the numerator. Table ED.4R provides the percentage of children of Table ED.4R provides the percentage of children of primary school age (7 to 14 years) who are attending primary school age (7 to 14 years) who are attending primary or secondary schoolprimary or secondary school1818. Some 89 percent of . Some 89 percent of children of primary school age in Roma settlements children of primary school age in Roma settlements are attending school. Lower attendance is present are attending school. Lower attendance is present among Roma children living in rural areas (83 among Roma children living in rural areas (83 percent), those whose mothers have no education percent), those whose mothers have no education (79 percent) and the children living in households (79 percent) and the children living in households within the poorest quintile (79 percent as well).within the poorest quintile (79 percent as well). MULTIPLE INDICATOR CLUSTER SURVEY 2010164 MONITORING THE SITUATION OF CHILDREN AND WOMEN 165 Table ED.4R: Primary school attendance, Roma Settlements, 2010 Percentage of children of primary school age attending primary or secondary school (adjusted net attendance ratio)   Male Female Total Net attendance ratio (adjusted) Number of children Net attendance ratio (adjusted) Number of children Net attendance ratio (adjusted)1 Number of children Area  Urban 91.9 462 90.2 430 91.1 892 Rural 86.8 181 78.7 200 82.5 381 Reached age in year 2010  7 92.8 105 88.7 89 90.9 194 8 95.9 67 93.5 79 94.6 145 9 84.7 78 94.3 97 90.0 175 10 93.9 75 96.9 80 95.5 155 11 95.9 82 96.2 64 96.1 146 12 95.0 85 87.5 72 91.6 157 13 84.4 72 66.5 74 75.4 146 14 79.8 79 66.3 75 73.2 154 Mother’s education  None 87.0 134 71.7 145 79.0 280 Primary 90.3 458 89.9 418 90.2 876 Secondary (100.0) 51 98.3 60 99.1 111 Wealth index quintile  Poorest 83.5 175 72.6 137 78.7 312 Second 90.0 147 86.9 118 88.6 265 Middle 91.4 112 85.5 123 88.3 235 Fourth 95.9 116 91.1 122 93.4 238 Richest 96.3 92 97.6 130 97.1 222 Total 90.4 643 86.5 630 88.5 1273 1 MICS indicator 7.4; MDG indicator 2.1 ( ) Figures that are based on 25–49 unweighted cases The secondary school net attendance ratio is presented in The secondary school net attendance ratio is presented in Table ED.5RTable ED.5R1919. Lower attendance rates are registered at the . Lower attendance rates are registered at the start of secondary education, which is not compulsory in start of secondary education, which is not compulsory in Serbia. While 89 percent of children in Roma settlements Serbia. While 89 percent of children in Roma settlements are attending primary school, only one in five Roma are attending primary school, only one in five Roma children (19 percent) of secondary school age, attends children (19 percent) of secondary school age, attends secondary school. The net attendance rate among girls is secondary school. The net attendance rate among girls is 19 Ratios presented in this table are “adjusted” since they include not only secondary school attendance, but also attendance at higher levels in the numerator. even lower than among boys (17 percent and 23 percent even lower than among boys (17 percent and 23 percent respectively). The net attendance rate is about six times respectively). The net attendance rate is about six times lower in the poorest quintile (6 percent) than in the richest lower in the poorest quintile (6 percent) than in the richest quintile (35 percent). A further 11 percent of all secondary quintile (35 percent). A further 11 percent of all secondary school age children in Roma settlements are attending school age children in Roma settlements are attending primary school while the remainder are not attending primary school while the remainder are not attending school at all. school at all. MONITORING THE SITUATION OF CHILDREN AND WOMEN 165 MULTIPLE INDICATOR CLUSTER SURVEY 2010166 Table ED.5R: Secondary school attendance, Roma Settlements, 2010 Percentage of children of secondary school age attending secondary school or higher (adjusted net attendance ratio) and percentage of children attending primary school Male Female Total Net attendance ratio (adjusted)1 Percent attending primary school Number of children Net attendance ratio (adjusted)1 Percent attending primary school Number of children Net attendance ratio (adjusted)1 Percent attending primary school Number of children Area Urban 29.3 11.5 154 21.3 12.2 212 24.7 11.9 366 Rural 13.1 10.9 104 7.5 9.4 115 10.2 10.1 219 Reached age in year 2010  15 29.0 32.0 76 29.2 26.4 99 29.1 28.8 174 16 22.3 6.0 51 18.2 9.4 83 19.7 8.1 134 17 28.3 2.4 57 11.9 2.2 74 19.0 2.3 131 18 12.6 .5 74 1.7 1.5 72 7.3 1.0 146 Mother’s education  None (10.9) (9.1) 36 (0.0) (38.5) 25 6.4 21.1 60 Primary 24.5 16.2 101 28.9 13.2 108 26.8 14.6 209 Secondary (*) (*) 16 (*) (*) 28 (68.8) (14.3) 44 Mother not in household (28.0) (18.7) 35 2.9 8.4 98 9.5 11.1 133 Wealth index quintile  Poorest 7.0 20.2 52 6.2 10.0 71 6.5 14.3 123 Second 14.1 10.9 60 8.1 4.9 66 10.9 7.8 127 Middle 19.0 10.4 55 7.2 18.2 62 12.8 14.5 118 Fourth (28.5) (6.1) 46 27.4 8.5 68 27.9 7.6 114 Richest (53.2) (7.3) 43 35.0 15.3 60 42.5 12.0 103 Total 22.8 11.2 257 16.5 11.2 328 19.3 11.2 585 1 MICS indicator 7.5 ( ) Figures that are based on 25–49 unweighted cases (*) Figures that are based on less than 25 unweighted cases The percentage of Roma children entering first grade The percentage of Roma children entering first grade who eventually reach the last grade of primary school who eventually reach the last grade of primary school is presented in Table ED.6R. In Serbia, grade 8, which is presented in Table ED.6R. In Serbia, grade 8, which is the last grade of primary education, corresponds to is the last grade of primary education, corresponds to ISCED 2 level. For global comparison purposes ISCED ISCED 2 level. For global comparison purposes ISCED tables can be found in Appendix G. Of all the children tables can be found in Appendix G. Of all the children in Roma settlements starting grade one, 90 percent will in Roma settlements starting grade one, 90 percent will eventually reach the last grade. Notice that this number eventually reach the last grade. Notice that this number includes children that repeat grades and that eventually includes children that repeat grades and that eventually move up to reach the last grade. Factors such as poverty, move up to reach the last grade. Factors such as poverty, lower educational attainment of the mother, living in lower educational attainment of the mother, living in rural areas and/or being a girl, all reduce the probability rural areas and/or being a girl, all reduce the probability of reaching the last grade.of reaching the last grade. MULTIPLE INDICATOR CLUSTER SURVEY 2010166 MONITORING THE SITUATION OF CHILDREN AND WOMEN 167 Table ED.6R: Children reaching last grade of primary school, Roma Settlements, 2010 Percentage of children entering first grade of primary school who eventually reach the last grade of primary school (Survival rate to last grade of primary school) Percent attending grade 1 last school year who are in grade 2 this school year Percent attending grade 2 last school year who are attending grade 3 this school year Percent attending grade 3 last school year who are attending grade 4 this school year Percent attending grade 4 last school year who are attending grade 5 this school year Percent attending grade 5 last school year who are attending grade 6 this school year Percent attending grade 6 last school year who are attending grade 7 this school year Percent attending grade 7 last school year who are attending grade 8 this school year Percent who reach grade 8 of those who enter grade 11 Sex  Male 97.7 100.0 99.6 100.0 98.6 (99.0) (100.0) (95.0) Female 99.6 100.0 99.3 93.2 97.3 (98.0) 96.4 (84.7) Area Urban 99.6 100.0 99.5 100.0 98.7 98.6 97.5 94.1 Rural 96.8 100.0 99.2 (88.8) 96.8 (98.1) (*) (81.0) Mother’s education None 98.5 (100.0) (100.0) (91.0) (99.0) (*) (*) (88.7) Primary 99.1 100.0 99.2 98.0 97.4 97.3 100.0 91.3 Secondary (*) (*) (*) (*) (*) (*) (*) (*) Wealth index quintile  Poorest 100.0 100.0 (100.0) (100.0) (98.8) (*) (*) (91.8) Second 95.6 (100.0) (98.9) (100.0) (95.3) (*) (*) (86.9) Middle (98.5) (*) (98.7) (*) (*) (100.0) (*) (75.5) Fourth (*) (100.0) (100.0) (*) (*) (*) (*) (91.1) Richest (100.0) (*) (100.0) (100.0) (100.0) (*) (100.0) (100.0) Total 98.7 100.0 99.4 96.9 98.1 98.5 97.9 89.9 1 MICS indicator 7.6; MDG indicator 2.2 ( ) Figures that are based on 25–49 unweighted cases (*) Figures that are based on less than 25 unweighted cases The gross primary school completion rate and transition The gross primary school completion rate and transition rate to secondary education are presented in Table ED.7R. rate to secondary education are presented in Table ED.7R. The primary school completion rate is the ratio of the total The primary school completion rate is the ratio of the total number of students, regardless of age, entering the last number of students, regardless of age, entering the last grade of primary school for the first time, to the number of grade of primary school for the first time, to the number of children of primary school graduation age at the beginning children of primary school graduation age at the beginning of the current (or most recent) school year. of the current (or most recent) school year. MONITORING THE SITUATION OF CHILDREN AND WOMEN 167 MULTIPLE INDICATOR CLUSTER SURVEY 2010168 Table ED.7R: Primary school completion and transition to secondary school, Roma Settlements, 2010 Primary school completion rates and transition rate to secondary school Primary schoolcompletion rate1 Number of children of primary school completion age Transition rate to secondary school2 Number of children who were in the last grade of primary school the previous year Sex  Male 51.0 79 (69.3) 47 Female 74.9 75 (66.9) 51 Area  Urban 79.5 103 (68.0) 76 Rural 28.7 51 (*) 22 Mother’s education  None (26.3) 46 (*) 9 Primary 62.3 97 (64.8) 42 Secondary (*) 12 (*) 27 Wealth index quintile  Poorest (28.6) 36 (*) 8 Second (34.1) 40 (*) 13 Middle (100.5) 20 (*) 17 Fourth (57.8) 32 (*) 26 Richest (128.6) 27 (*) 33 Total 62.7 154 68.1 98 1 MICS indicator 7.7 2 MICS indicator 7.8 ( ) Figures that are based on 25–49 unweighted cases (*) Figures that are based on less than 25 unweighted cases At the time of the survey, the At the time of the survey, the gross primary school gross primary school completion ratecompletion rate was 63 percent. Furthermore, 68 percent was 63 percent. Furthermore, 68 percent of children that successfully completed the last grade of of children that successfully completed the last grade of primary school were found at the time of the survey to be primary school were found at the time of the survey to be attending the first grade of secondary school.attending the first grade of secondary school. For the purposes of analysis, the For the purposes of analysis, the net primary school net primary school completion ratecompletion rate is much more relevant indicator is much more relevant indicator for Serbia. It is the ratio of the number of students of for Serbia. It is the ratio of the number of students of primary school graduation age entering the last grade primary school graduation age entering the last grade of primary school for the first time, to the total number of primary school for the first time, to the total number of children of primary school graduation age at the of children of primary school graduation age at the beginning of the current (or most recent) school year. beginning of the current (or most recent) school year. The net primary school completion rate and transition The net primary school completion rate and transition rate to secondary school are presented in Table ED.7RA. rate to secondary school are presented in Table ED.7RA. The net primary school completion rate is 35 percent.The net primary school completion rate is 35 percent. MULTIPLE INDICATOR CLUSTER SURVEY 2010168 MONITORING THE SITUATION OF CHILDREN AND WOMEN 169 Table ED.7RA: Net primary school completion and transition to secondary school, Roma Settlements, 2010 Net primary school completion rates and transition rate to secondary school Net primary school completion rate1 Number of children of primary school completion age Transition rate to secondary school2 Number of children who were in the last grade of primary school the previous year Sex  Male 28.4 79 (69.3) 47 Female 41.8 75 (66.9) 51 Area Urban 43.6 103 (68.0) 76 Rural 17.5 51 (68.1) 22 Mother’s education  None (12.4) 46 (*) 9 Primary 41.7 97 (64.8) 42 Secondary (*) 12 (*) 27 Wealth index quintile  Poorest (11.9) 36 (*) 8 Second (28.0) 40 (*) 13 Middle (42.4) 20 (*) 17 Fourth (37.3) 32 (*) 26 Richest (68.1) 27 (*) 33 Total 35.0 154 68.1 98 1 MICS indicator 7.7 2 MICS indicator 7.8 ( ) Figures that are based on 25–49 unweighted cases (*) Figures that are based on less than 25 unweighted cases The ratio of girls to boys attending primary and secondary The ratio of girls to boys attending primary and secondary education is provided in Table ED.8R. These ratios are education is provided in Table ED.8R. These ratios are better known as the Gender Parity Index (GPI). The table better known as the Gender Parity Index (GPI). The table shows that gender parity for primary school is 0.96. The shows that gender parity for primary school is 0.96. The parity is balanced among children whose mothers have parity is balanced among children whose mothers have primary education (1.00) and in the richest quintile (1.01). primary education (1.00) and in the richest quintile (1.01). The GPI for secondary school is 0.72 indicating that The GPI for secondary school is 0.72 indicating that there are more boys than girls in secondary education, there are more boys than girls in secondary education, or in other words girls are disadvantaged in secondary or in other words girls are disadvantaged in secondary education.education. MONITORING THE SITUATION OF CHILDREN AND WOMEN 169 MULTIPLE INDICATOR CLUSTER SURVEY 2010170 Table ED.8R: Education gender parity, Roma Settlements, 2010 Ratio of adjusted net attendance ratios of girls to boys, in primary and secondary school Primary school adjusted net attendance ratio (NAR), girls Primary school adjusted net attendance ratio (NAR), boys Gender parity index (GPI) for primary school adjusted NAR1 Secondary school adjusted net attendance ratio (NAR), girls Secondary school adjusted net attendance ratio (NAR), boys Gender parity index (GPI) for secondary school adjusted NAR2 Area  Urban 90.2 91.9 .98 21.3 29.3 .73 Rural 78.7 86.8 .91 7.5 13.1 .57 Mother’s education  None 71.7 87.0 .82 (.0) (10.9) (.00) Primary 89.9 90.3 1.00 28.9 24.5 1.18 Secondary 98.3 (100.0) (.98) (*) (*) (*) Wealth index quintile  Poorest 72.6 83.5 .87 6.2 7.0 .88 Second 86.9 90.0 .97 8.1 14.1 .57 Middle 85.5 91.4 .94 7.2 19.0 .38 Fourth 91.1 95.9 .95 27.4 (28.5) (.96) Richest 97.6 96.3 1.01 35.0 (53.2) (.66) Total 86.5 90.4 .96 16.5 22.8 .72 1 MICS indicator 7.9; MDG indicator 3.1 2 MICS indicator 7.10; MDG indicator 3.1 ( ) Figures that are based on 25–49 unweighted cases (*) Figures that are based on less than 25 unweighted cases MULTIPLE INDICATOR CLUSTER SURVEY 2010170 MONITORING THE SITUATION OF CHILDREN AND WOMEN 171 Birth RegistrationBirth Registration The Convention on the Rights of the Child states that every The Convention on the Rights of the Child states that every child has the right to a name and a nationality and the right child has the right to a name and a nationality and the right to protection from being deprived of his or her identity. Birth to protection from being deprived of his or her identity. Birth registration is a fundamental means of securing these rights registration is a fundamental means of securing these rights for children. A World Fit for Children goal is to develop for children. A World Fit for Children goal is to develop systems to ensure the registration of every child at, or shortly systems to ensure the registration of every child at, or shortly after, birth, and fulfil his or her right to acquire a name and after, birth, and fulfil his or her right to acquire a name and a nationality, in accordance with national laws and relevant a nationality, in accordance with national laws and relevant XIXI CHILD PROTECTION CHILD PROTECTION international instruments. The indicator is the percentage international instruments. The indicator is the percentage of children under 5 years of age whose birth is registered.of children under 5 years of age whose birth is registered. The births of 99 percent of children under five years of age The births of 99 percent of children under five years of age in Serbia have been registered (Table CP.1). There are no in Serbia have been registered (Table CP.1). There are no significant variations in birth registration across sex, age, significant variations in birth registration across sex, age, region or education categories. Having the birth certificate region or education categories. Having the birth certificate at home in Serbia is not mandatory, due to the fact that it is at home in Serbia is not mandatory, due to the fact that it is valid up to 6 months only.valid up to 6 months only. Children under age 5 whose birth is registered with civil authorities Number of children Has birth certificate No birth certificate Total registered1Seen Not seen Sex Male 62.1 34.4 2.7 99.2 1670 Female 62.2 33.0 3.5 98.7 1704 Region  Belgrade 64.5 32.2 .1 96.8 639 Vojvodina 58.9 36.5 3.8 99.2 994 Sumadija and Western Serbia 56.8 35.8 6.7 99.3 905 Southern and Eastern Serbia 70.1 29.1 .6 99.7 836 Area  Urban 66.6 30.6 1.4 98.6 1810 Rural 57.0 37.2 5.1 99.3 1564 Age  0–11 months 63.2 31.3 3.1 97.7 559 12–23 months 61.4 35.1 2.9 99.4 661 24–35 months 62.5 32.3 4.3 99.1 748 Table CP.1: Birth registration, Serbia, 2010 Percentage of children under age 5 by whether birth is registered and percentage of children not registered whose mothers/caretakers know how to register birth* Children under age 5 whose birth is registered with civil authorities Number of children Has birth certificate No birth certificate Total registered1Seen Not seen Age  36–47 months 61.1 36.3 2.1 99.6 663 48–59 months 62.6 33.1 2.9 98.7 743 Mother’s education  Primary 41.2 48.0 7.9 97.1 480 Secondary 63.6 32.6 2.8 99.0 1982 Higher 69.7 28.8 1.3 99.7 878 Wealth index quintile  Poorest 43.3 45.8 7.6 96.7 634 Second 60.2 36.8 2.6 99.5 658 Middle 64.2 32.9 2.3 99.4 599 Fourth 68.2 28.3 2.6 99.0 665 Richest 72.0 26.8 1.0 99.8 818 Total 62.2 33.7 3.1 98.9 3374 1 MICS indicator 8.1 (*) The column “Children under age 5 whose birth is not registered” is excluded due to a small number of occurences (less than 25 unweighted cases) MULTIPLE INDICATOR CLUSTER SURVEY 2010172 Birth Registration in Roma SettlementsBirth Registration in Roma Settlements Table CP.1R: Birth registration, Roma Settlements, 2010 Percentage of children under age 5 by whether birth is registered and percentage of children not registered whose mothers/caretakers know how to register birth* Children under age 5 whose birth is registered with civil authorities Number of children Has birth certificate No birth certificate Total registered1 Seen Not seen Sex  Male 53.0 38.2 6.9 98.1 823 Female 52.3 40.6 6.7 99.5 781 Area  Urban 58.7 35.2 5.4 99.3 1084 Rural 40.1 47.9 9.8 97.7 520 Age  0–11 months 52.8 35.3 7.8 95.9 255 12–23 months 56.6 38.0 5.3 99.8 337 24–35 months 46.6 43.0 9.0 98.5 360 36–47 months 53.6 42.4 3.9 99.9 305 48–59 months 54.2 37.1 7.8 99.2 347 Mother’s education  None 43.7 40.9 14.0 98.6 319 Primary 52.4 41.3 5.0 98.7 1111 Secondary 69.7 25.0 5.3 100.0 166 Wealth index quintile  Poorest 36.8 46.9 13.9 97.6 396 Second 48.1 42.8 7.6 98.5 380 Middle 53.9 40.3 4.7 99.0 288 Fourth 63.9 33.2 2.6 99.6 276 Richest 70.0 28.3 1.6 99.9 264 Total 52.7 39.3 6.8 98.8 1604 1 MICS indicator 8.1 (*) The column “Children under age 5 whose birth is not registered” is excluded due to a small number of occurences (less than 25 unweighted cases) The births of 99 percent of children under five years of age The births of 99 percent of children under five years of age in Roma settlements have been registered (Table CP.1R). in Roma settlements have been registered (Table CP.1R). There are no significant variations in birth registration There are no significant variations in birth registration across sex and age but low education of mother and low across sex and age but low education of mother and low socio-economic status seems to reduce the chances of socio-economic status seems to reduce the chances of birth registration.birth registration. MULTIPLE INDICATOR CLUSTER SURVEY 2010172 MONITORING THE SITUATION OF CHILDREN AND WOMEN 173 Child DisciplineChild Discipline As stated in A World Fit for Children, “children must As stated in A World Fit for Children, “children must be protected against any acts of violence …” and the be protected against any acts of violence …” and the Millennium Declaration calls for the protection of Millennium Declaration calls for the protection of children against abuse, exploitation and violence. In children against abuse, exploitation and violence. In the Serbia MICS survey, respondents to the household the Serbia MICS survey, respondents to the household questionnaire were asked a series of questions on the questionnaire were asked a series of questions on the ways adults tend to use to disciple children when they ways adults tend to use to disciple children when they misbehave. Note that for the child discipline module, misbehave. Note that for the child discipline module, one child aged 2–14 per household was selected one child aged 2–14 per household was selected randomly during fieldwork. The two indicators used randomly during fieldwork. The two indicators used Table CP.2: Child discipline, Serbia, 2010 Percentage of children age 2–14 years according to method of disciplining the child Percentage of children age 2–14 years who experienced: Number of children age 2–14 years Respondent believes that the child needs to be physically punished Respondents to the child discipline module Only non- violent discipline Psychological aggression Physical punishment Any violent discipline method1Any Severe Sex  Male 25.1 62.8 38.9 2.4 70.3 1453 7.6 968 Female 31.5 57.0 35.8 .7 63.9 1408 6.7 882 Region  Belgrade 24.7 59.8 37.5 3.1 67.4 529 10.8 347 Vojvodina 27.6 62.2 38.8 1.7 69.9 752 6.4 500 Sumadija and Western Serbia 28.4 58.9 41.7 1.1 66.7 808 9.0 502 Southern and Eastern Serbia 31.2 59.1 31.3 .9 64.8 772 3.6 501 Area  Urban 29.1 59.7 34.3 1.8 66.5 1538 6.0 1032 Rural 27.3 60.3 40.9 1.2 67.9 1323 8.6 818 Age  2–4 years 25.9 57.2 50.7 1.1 69.7 845 8.7 580 5–9 years 28.6 62.0 41.4 1.6 69.5 1051 6.2 626 10–14 years 29.9 60.2 21.3 1.9 62.4 964 6.8 644 Education of household head  Primary 24.2 64.6 45.3 1.9 71.5 852 na na Secondary 28.6 58.9 36.4 1.7 66.5 1462 na na Higher 33.9 55.1 25.8 .4 61.7 510 na na Respondent’s education  Primary na na na na na na 7.1 430 Secondary na na na na na na 7.1 1018 Higher na na na na na na 6.1 389 Wealth index quintile  Poorest 24.0 62.9 46.1 3.5 72.0 526 10.1 308 Second 28.7 61.4 37.2 .6 66.9 587 7.1 372 Middle 28.6 62.6 37.5 1.2 67.9 569 6.9 359 Fourth 29.2 58.7 37.4 1.7 66.0 574 8.5 382 Richest 30.3 54.8 29.8 .9 63.6 606 4.3 429 Total 28.2 60.0 37.4 1.6 67.1 2861 7.2 1850 1 MICS indicator 8.5 MULTIPLE INDICATOR CLUSTER SURVEY 2010174 to describe aspects of child discipline are: 1) the to describe aspects of child discipline are: 1) the number of children aged between 2–14 years that number of children aged between 2–14 years that experience psychological aggression as punishment experience psychological aggression as punishment oror minor physical punishment minor physical punishment oror severe physical severe physical punishment; and 2) the number of respondents that punishment; and 2) the number of respondents that believe that in order to raise children properly, they believe that in order to raise children properly, they need be physically punished.need be physically punished. In Serbia, 67 percent of children aged 2–14 years were In Serbia, 67 percent of children aged 2–14 years were subjected to at least one form of psychological or physical subjected to at least one form of psychological or physical punishment by their parents or other adults household punishment by their parents or other adults household members. More importantly, 2 percent of children were members. More importantly, 2 percent of children were subjected to severe physical punishment. On the other hand, subjected to severe physical punishment. On the other hand, only 7 percent of respondents to the household questionnaires only 7 percent of respondents to the household questionnaires believed that children should be physically punished in order believed that children should be physically punished in order to bring up, raise, or educate a child properly.to bring up, raise, or educate a child properly. Male children were subjected to any type of physical Male children were subjected to any type of physical punishment and severe physical discipline (39 and 2 punishment and severe physical discipline (39 and 2 percent) almost in the same way as female children percent) almost in the same way as female children (36 and 1 percent). It is interesting that differentials (36 and 1 percent). It is interesting that differentials with respect to many of the background variables were with respect to many of the background variables were relatively small, but it should be noted that physical relatively small, but it should be noted that physical punishment is more likely in households whose head punishment is more likely in households whose head has primary education (45 percent) compared to has primary education (45 percent) compared to higher education (26 percent), and also among younger higher education (26 percent), and also among younger children aged between 2–4 years (51 percent) compared children aged between 2–4 years (51 percent) compared to older 10–14 year olds (21 percent). Other factors to older 10–14 year olds (21 percent). Other factors correlated with more frequent use of violent discipline correlated with more frequent use of violent discipline methods are socio-economic status and low educational methods are socio-economic status and low educational attainment of family members. attainment of family members. It is of importance also to indicate that a relatively small It is of importance also to indicate that a relatively small percent of respondents believe that in order to raise their percent of respondents believe that in order to raise their children properly they need to physically punish them (7 children properly they need to physically punish them (7 percent), but in practice 37 percent of parents/caretakers percent), but in practice 37 percent of parents/caretakers use physical punishment as a method of discipline. On use physical punishment as a method of discipline. On the other hand, only 28 percent of children experienced the other hand, only 28 percent of children experienced non-violent discipline methods. It seems that the majority non-violent discipline methods. It seems that the majority of parents are against physical punishment of children of parents are against physical punishment of children but they do not have enough knowledge about alternative but they do not have enough knowledge about alternative methods of child education. methods of child education. MONITORING THE SITUATION OF CHILDREN AND WOMEN 175 Child Discipline in Roma SettlementsChild Discipline in Roma Settlements Table CP.2R: Child discipline, Roma Settlements, 2010 Percentage of children age 2–14 years according to method of disciplining the child Percentage of children age 2–14 years who experienced: Number of children age 2–14 years Respondent believes that the child needs to be physically punished Respondents to the child discipline module Only non-violent discipline Psychological aggression Physical punishment Any violent discipline method1Any Severe Sex  Male 11.2 78.5 63.7 6.6 85.2 1237 24.4 594 Female 9.9 84.8 61.8 5.5 87.0 1192 21.6 562 Area  Urban 10.8 81.6 62.6 6.0 85.6 1673 23.8 798 Rural 10.1 81.6 63.1 6.3 87.2 756 21.2 358 Age  2–4 years 15.3 75.3 63.9 5.1 81.3 762 27.1 406 5–9 years 9.0 85.7 66.4 5.5 89.8 951 21.5 412 10–14 years 7.7 82.9 56.9 7.8 86.2 716 20.0 338 Education of household head  None 9.1 85.1 62.3 7.6 86.9 293 na na Primary 9.6 82.1 62.9 6.2 86.9 1784 na na Secondary 17.2 75.6 61.1 4.0 80.4 337 na na Respondent’s education  Primary na na na na na na 19.6 795 Secondary na na na na na na 27.4 161 Wealth index quintile  Poorest 6.5 87.1 68.8 9.0 91.0 599 33.1 259 Second 7.4 87.4 63.5 4.7 89.5 529 21.5 242 Middle 11.4 79.6 64.9 6.2 84.9 451 25.2 205 Fourth 18.1 74.1 57.6 4.9 81.3 427 18.4 217 Richest 11.9 76.3 56.4 4.7 80.8 423 15.8 233 Total 10.6 81.6 62.8 6.1 86.1 2429 23.0 1156 1 MICS indicator 8.5 In Roma settlements, 86 percent of children aged 2–14 In Roma settlements, 86 percent of children aged 2–14 years were subjected to at least one form of psychological years were subjected to at least one form of psychological or physical punishment by their parents or other adult or physical punishment by their parents or other adult household members. More importantly, 6 percent of household members. More importantly, 6 percent of children were subjected to severe physical punishment. children were subjected to severe physical punishment. On the other hand, only 23 percent of respondents to the On the other hand, only 23 percent of respondents to the household questionnaires believed that children should household questionnaires believed that children should be physically punished.be physically punished. Male children were subjected to any type of physical Male children were subjected to any type of physical discipline and severe physical discipline (64 and 7 discipline and severe physical discipline (64 and 7 percent) slightly more than female children (62 and 6 percent) slightly more than female children (62 and 6 percent). It is interesting that differentials with respect to percent). It is interesting that differentials with respect to many of the background variables were relatively small, but many of the background variables were relatively small, but psychological aggression and severe physical punishment psychological aggression and severe physical punishment seems to increase in line with children’s age. Low education seems to increase in line with children’s age. Low education of household head and socio-economic status are also of household head and socio-economic status are also linked to increased use of violent discipline methods. linked to increased use of violent discipline methods. It is importance to note that 23 percent of respondentsIt is importance to note that 23 percent of respondents believe that in order to raise their children properly believe that in order to raise their children properly they need to physically punish them, while in practice they need to physically punish them, while in practice 82 percent indicated the opposite. Only 11 percent of 82 percent indicated the opposite. Only 11 percent of children experienced methods of non-violent discipline. children experienced methods of non-violent discipline. MONITORING THE SITUATION OF CHILDREN AND WOMEN 175 MULTIPLE INDICATOR CLUSTER SURVEY 2010176 Early MarriageEarly Marriage Marriage before the age of 18 is a reality for many young Marriage before the age of 18 is a reality for many young girls. According to UNICEF’s worldwide estimates, over 64 girls. According to UNICEF’s worldwide estimates, over 64 million women aged 20–24 were married/in union before million women aged 20–24 were married/in union before the age of 18. Factors that influence child marriage rates the age of 18. Factors that influence child marriage rates include: the state of the country’s civil registration system, include: the state of the country’s civil registration system, which provides proof of age for children; the existence of which provides proof of age for children; the existence of an adequate legislative framework with an accompanying an adequate legislative framework with an accompanying enforcement mechanism to address cases of child enforcement mechanism to address cases of child marriage; and the existence of customary or religious marriage; and the existence of customary or religious laws that condone the practice. laws that condone the practice. In many parts of the world parents encourage the marriage In many parts of the world parents encourage the marriage of their daughters while they are still children in the hope of their daughters while they are still children in the hope that the marriage will benefit them financially and socially, that the marriage will benefit them financially and socially, while also relieving financial burdens on the family. In while also relieving financial burdens on the family. In actual fact, child marriage is a violation of human rights, actual fact, child marriage is a violation of human rights, compromising girls’ development and often resulting in compromising girls’ development and often resulting in early pregnancy and social isolation, with little education early pregnancy and social isolation, with little education and poor vocational training reinforcing the gendered and poor vocational training reinforcing the gendered nature of poverty. The right to ‘free and full’ consent to nature of poverty. The right to ‘free and full’ consent to a marriage is recognized in the Universal Declaration a marriage is recognized in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights — with the recognition that consent of Human Rights — with the recognition that consent cannot be ‘free and full’ when one of the parties involved cannot be ‘free and full’ when one of the parties involved is not sufficiently mature to make an informed decision is not sufficiently mature to make an informed decision about a life partner. about a life partner. The Convention on the Elimination of all Forms of The Convention on the Elimination of all Forms of Discrimination against Women mentions the right to Discrimination against Women mentions the right to protection from child marriage in Article 16, which protection from child marriage in Article 16, which states: “The betrothal and the marriage of a child shall states: “The betrothal and the marriage of a child shall have no legal effect, and all necessary action, including have no legal effect, and all necessary action, including legislation, shall be taken to specify a minimum age for legislation, shall be taken to specify a minimum age for marriage.”. While marriage is not considered directly in marriage.”. While marriage is not considered directly in the Convention on the Rights of the Child, child marriage the Convention on the Rights of the Child, child marriage is linked to other rights — such as the right to express is linked to other rights — such as the right to express their views freely, the right to protection from all forms their views freely, the right to protection from all forms of abuse, and the right to be protected from harmful of abuse, and the right to be protected from harmful traditional practices — and is frequently addressed by traditional practices — and is frequently addressed by the Committee on the Rights of the Child. the Committee on the Rights of the Child. In Serbia, according to the Family Law, marriage is not In Serbia, according to the Family Law, marriage is not allowed before the age of 18. However, under special allowed before the age of 18. However, under special circumstances marriage is allowed after the age of 16. circumstances marriage is allowed after the age of 16. Young married girls are a unique, though often invisible, Young married girls are a unique, though often invisible, group. Required to perform heavy amounts of domestic group. Required to perform heavy amounts of domestic work, under pressure to demonstrate fertility, and work, under pressure to demonstrate fertility, and responsible for raising children while still children responsible for raising children while still children themselves, married girls and child-mothers face themselves, married girls and child-mothers face constrained decision-making and reduced life choices. constrained decision-making and reduced life choices. Boys are also affected by child marriage but the issue Boys are also affected by child marriage but the issue impacts on far larger numbers of girls and impacts on impacts on far larger numbers of girls and impacts on them with more intensity. Cohabitation — when a couple them with more intensity. Cohabitation — when a couple lives together as if married — raises the same human lives together as if married — raises the same human rights concerns as marriage. Where a girl lives with a man rights concerns as marriage. Where a girl lives with a man and takes on the role of caregiver for him, the assumption and takes on the role of caregiver for him, the assumption is often that she has become an adult woman, even if she is often that she has become an adult woman, even if she has not yet reached the age of 18. Additional concerns has not yet reached the age of 18. Additional concerns due to the informality of the relationship — for example, due to the informality of the relationship — for example, inheritance, citizenship and social recognition — might inheritance, citizenship and social recognition — might make girls in informal unions vulnerable in different ways make girls in informal unions vulnerable in different ways than those who are in formally recognized marriages. than those who are in formally recognized marriages. Research suggests that many factors interact to place a Research suggests that many factors interact to place a child at risk of marriage. Poverty, protection of girls, family child at risk of marriage. Poverty, protection of girls, family honour and the provision of stability during unstable social honour and the provision of stability during unstable social periods are considered as significant factors in determining periods are considered as significant factors in determining a girl’s risk of becoming married while still a child. Women a girl’s risk of becoming married while still a child. Women who married at younger ages were more likely to believe who married at younger ages were more likely to believe that it is sometimes acceptable for a husband to beat his that it is sometimes acceptable for a husband to beat his wife and were more likely to experience domestic violence wife and were more likely to experience domestic violence themselves. The age gap between partners is thought to themselves. The age gap between partners is thought to contribute to these abusive power dynamics and to increase contribute to these abusive power dynamics and to increase the risk of untimely widowhood. the risk of untimely widowhood. Closely related to the issue of child marriage is the age Closely related to the issue of child marriage is the age at which girls become sexually active. Women who are at which girls become sexually active. Women who are married before the age of 18 tend to have more children married before the age of 18 tend to have more children than those who marry later in life. Pregnancy related than those who marry later in life. Pregnancy related deaths are known to be a leading cause of mortality for deaths are known to be a leading cause of mortality for both married and unmarried girls between the ages both married and unmarried girls between the ages of 15 and 19, particularly among the youngest. There of 15 and 19, particularly among the youngest. There is evidence to suggest that girls who marry at a young is evidence to suggest that girls who marry at a young age are more likely to marry older men. The demand age are more likely to marry older men. The demand for a young wife to reproduce and the power imbalance for a young wife to reproduce and the power imbalance resulting from the age differential leads to very low resulting from the age differential leads to very low condom use among such couples. condom use among such couples. MONITORING THE SITUATION OF CHILDREN AND WOMEN 177 Two indicators are the estimated percentage of women Two indicators are the estimated percentage of women married before 15 years of age and the percentage married married before 15 years of age and the percentage married before 18 years of age. The percentage of women and before 18 years of age. The percentage of women and men married at various ages is provided in Tables CP.3 men married at various ages is provided in Tables CP.3 and CP.3M. Less than 1 percent of women aged 20–49 and CP.3M. Less than 1 percent of women aged 20–49 were married before 15 and 8 percent of them married were married before 15 and 8 percent of them married before 18. About one in twenty young women aged 15–19 before 18. About one in twenty young women aged 15–19 years are currently married or in union (5 percent). This years are currently married or in union (5 percent). This proportion does not vary much between urban (4 percent) proportion does not vary much between urban (4 percent) and rural areas (8 percent), but is strongly related to the and rural areas (8 percent), but is strongly related to the level of education and socio-economic status. Comparing level of education and socio-economic status. Comparing early marriages for women and men aged between 15–29 early marriages for women and men aged between 15–29 years in Serbia, seems to evidence that more women than years in Serbia, seems to evidence that more women than men get married before 15 or 18. men get married before 15 or 18. Table CP.3: Early marriage, Serbia, 2010 Percentage of women age 15–49 years who first married or entered a marital union before their 15th birthday, percentages of women age 20–49 years who first married or entered a marital union before their 15th and 18th birthdays, percentage of women age 15–19 years currently married or in union   Percentage married before age 151 Number of women age 15–49 years Percentage married before age 15 Percentage married before age 182 Number of women age 20–49 years Percentage of women 15–19 years currently married/in union3 Number of women age 15–19 years Region Belgrade 1.0 1142 .8 3.2 1021 6.8 121 Vojvodina .8 1376 .8 7.7 1193 5.3 183 Sumadija and Western Serbia .6 1517 .7 9.3 1309 3.9 208 Southern and Eastern Serbia 1.0 1351 1.1 9.8 1204 5.8 147 Area  Urban .7 3155 .6 4.5 2767 3.7 388 Rural 1.1 2230 1.2 12.3 1959 7.5 271 Age  15–19 .9 659 na na na 5.2 659 20–24 .9 705 .9 5.0 705 na na 25–29 .3 846 .3 4.4 846 na na 15–29 .7 2210 .6 4.7 1551 5.2 659 30–34 .5 775 .5 4.6 775 na na 35–39 .8 791 .8 10.5 791 na na 40–44 1.0 703 1.0 10.5 703 na na 45–49 1.4 905 1.4 11.1 905 na na Education  Primary 4.1 704 3.6 32.5 649 39.6 55 Secondary .3 3067 .3 5.2 2541 1.7 526 Higher .0 1587 .0 .4 1509 (4.4) 78 Wealth index quintile  Poorest 3.6 750 3.2 20.9 656 16.4 94 Second 1.0 1066 1.1 12.2 946 5.0 120 Middle .6 1080 .7 6.6 931 4.6 148 Fourth .1 1217 .1 3.3 1082 2.2 135 Richest .0 1273 .0 1.4 1112 2.1 161 Total .8 5385 .8 7.7 4726 5.2 659 1 MICS indicator 8.6 2 MICS indicator 8.7 3 MICS indicator 8.8 ( ) Figures that are based on 25–49 unweighted cases MULTIPLE INDICATOR CLUSTER SURVEY 2010178 Table CP.3M: Early marriage, Serbia, 2010 Percentage of men age 15–29 years who first married or entered a marital union before their 15th birthday, percentages of men age 20–29 years who first married or entered a marital union before their 15th and 18th birthdays, percentage of men age 15–19 years currently married or in union   Percentage married before age 15 Number of men age 15–29 years Percentage married before age 15 Percentage married before age 18 Number of men age 20–29 years Percentage of men 15–19 years currently married/in union1 Number of men age 15–19 years Region  Belgrade .0 319 .0 .9 245 .3 74 Vojvodina .1 408 .2 .6 286 .5 122 Sumadija and Western Serbia .0 448 .0 .1 313 .1 135 Southern and Eastern Serbia .1 408 .0 1.1 274 3.2 134 Area  Urban .1 908 .1 .3 651 .4 257 Rural .0 675 .0 1.1 467 2.0 208 Age  15–19 .1 465 na na na 1.2 465 20–24 .1 512 .1 .9 512 na na 25–29 .0 606 .0 .4 606 na na Education  Primary .7 120 .5 6.7 89 (*) 31 Secondary .0 1032 .0 .1 638 1.2 394 Higher .0 429 .0 .0 389 (0.0) 40 Wealth index quintile  Poorest .3 235 .3 2.8 157 4.5 78 Second .0 326 .0 .7 249 1.8 76 Middle .0 321 .0 .2 223 .2 98 Fourth .0 334 .0 .2 214 .2 120 Richest .0 367 .0 .0 275 .0 93 Total .1 1583 .0 .6 1118 1.2 465 1 MICS indicator 8.8 ( ) Figures that are based on 25–49 unweighted cases (*) Figures that are based on less than 25 unweighted cases Table CP.4 presents the proportion of women who were Table CP.4 presents the proportion of women who were first married or entered into a marital union before the first married or entered into a marital union before the ages of 15 and 18 by residence and age groups. Examining ages of 15 and 18 by residence and age groups. Examining the percentages married before 15 and 18 by different the percentages married before 15 and 18 by different age groups allows us to see the trends in early marriage age groups allows us to see the trends in early marriage over time. The demographic trend that women used to over time. The demographic trend that women used to postpone marriage to an older age is visible in the data.postpone marriage to an older age is visible in the data. MONITORING THE SITUATION OF CHILDREN AND WOMEN 179 Table CP.4: Trends in early marriage, Serbia, 2010 Percentage of women who were first married or entered into a marital union before age 15 and 18, by residence and age groups Urban Rural All Percentage of women married before age 15 Number of women Percentage of women married before age 18 Number of women Percentage of women married before age 15 Number of women Percentage of women married before age 18 Number of women Percentage of women married before age 15 Number of women Percentage of women married before age 18 Number of women Age  15–19 1.2 388 na na .5 271 na na .9 659 na na 20–24 1.3 427 4.5 427 .3 278 5.9 278 .9 705 5.0 705 25–29 .0 478 2.5 478 .6 368 7.0 368 .3 846 4.4 846 15–29 .8 1292 3.4 904 .5 918 6.5 646 .7 2210 4.7 1551 30–34 .2 413 2.5 413 .8 362 6.9 362 .5 775 4.6 775 35–39 .2 481 4.1 481 1.7 310 20.3 310 .8 791 10.5 791 40–44 1.2 399 7.9 399 .7 304 13.8 304 1.0 703 10.5 703 45–49 .6 569 5.4 569 2.8 337 20.5 337 1.4 905 11.1 905 Total .7 3155 4.5 2767 1.1 2230 12.3 1959 .8 5385 7.7 4726 Table CP.4M: Trends in early marriage, Serbia, 2010 Percentage of men who were first married or entered into a marital union before age 15 and 18, by residence and age groups Urban Rural All Percentage of men married before age 15 Number of men Percentage of men married before age 18 Number of men Percentage of men married before age 15 Number of men Percentage of men married before age 18 Number of men Percentage of men married before age 15 Number of men Percentage of men married before age 18 Number of men Age 15–19 .1 257 na na .0 208 na na .1 465 na na 20–24 .2 299 .6 299 .0 213 1.3 213 .1 512 .9 512 25–29 .0 352 .0 352 .0 253 1.0 253 .0 606 .4 606 Total .1 908 .3 651 .0 675 1.1 467 .1 1583 .6 1118 Another component is the spousal age difference with Another component is the spousal age difference with an indicator being the percentage of married/in union an indicator being the percentage of married/in union women with a difference of 10 or more years younger women with a difference of 10 or more years younger than their current spouse. Table CP.5 presents the results than their current spouse. Table CP.5 presents the results of the age difference between husbands and wives. About of the age difference between husbands and wives. About one in ten women aged 20–24 is currently married to a one in ten women aged 20–24 is currently married to a 20 This conclusion is based on very small number of cases. man who is older by ten years or more (9 percent), and 8 man who is older by ten years or more (9 percent), and 8 percent of women aged 15–19 are currently married to percent of women aged 15–19 are currently married to men who are older by ten years or moremen who are older by ten years or more2020. Almost half of the women aged between 20–24 years are Almost half of the women aged between 20–24 years are currently married or in union with a husband/partner currently married or in union with a husband/partner who is 0 to 4 years older.who is 0 to 4 years older. MULTIPLE INDICATOR CLUSTER SURVEY 2010180 Table CP.5: Spousal age difference, Serbia, 2010 Percent distribution of women currently married/in union age 15–19 and 20–24 years according to the age difference with their husband or partner Percentage of currently married/in union women age 15–19 years whose husband or partner is: Number of women age 15–19 years currently married/ in union Percentage of currently married/in union women age 20–24 years whose husband or partner is: Number of women age 20–24 years currently married/in union Younger 0–4 years older 5–9 years older 10+ years older1 Husband/ partner’s age unknown Total Younger 0–4 years older 5–9 years older 10+ years older2 Total Region Belgrade (*) (*) (*) (*) (*) 100.0 8 (1.3) (58.1) (29.4) (11.1) 100.0 33 Vojvodina (*) (*) (*) (*) (*) 100.0 10 7.3 43.3 40.1 9.3 100.0 52 Sumadija and Western Serbia (*) (*) (*) (*) (*) 100.0 8 6.7 44.3 36.1 12.9 100.0 55 Southern and Eastern Serbia (*) (*) (*) (*) (*) 100.0 9 13.1 43.5 39.2 4.2 100.0 68 Area  Urban (*) (*) (*) (*) (*) 100.0 14 10.2 46.8 33.4 9.6 100.0 90 Rural (*) (*) (*) (*) (*) 100.0 20 6.5 45.3 39.8 8.4 100.0 118 Age  15–19 (0.8) (33.9) (47.6) (7.8) (9.8) 100.0 35 na na na na na na 20–24 na na na na na na na 8.1 46.0 37.0 8.9 100.0 208 Education  Primary (*) (*) (*) (*) (*) 100.0 22 10.9 41.9 35.5 11.7 100.0 38 Secondary (*) (*) (*) (*) (*) 100.0 9 6.7 46.9 37.2 9.3 100.0 141 Higher (*) (*) (*) (*) (*) 100.0 3 (12.6) (45.5) (37.8) (4.1) 100.0 24 Wealth index quintile  Poorest (*) (*) (*) (*) (*) 100.0 15 7.3 44.0 39.0 9.6 100.0 62 Second (*) (*) (*) (*) (*) 100.0 6 .9 49.7 44.5 5.0 100.0 57 Middle (*) (*) (*) (*) (*) 100.0 7 9.9 51.8 29.7 8.6 100.0 37 Fourth (*) (*) (*) (*) (*) 100.0 3 15.9 32.4 40.6 11.1 100.0 22 Richest (*) (*) (*) (*) (*) 100.0 3 15.0 46.0 25.6 13.4 100.0 31 Total (.8) (33.9) (47.6) (7.8) (9.8) 100.0 35 8.1 46.0 37.0 8.9 100.0 208 1 MICS indicator 8.10a 2 MICS indicator 8.10b ( ) Figures that are based on 25–49 unweighted cases (*) Figures that are based on less than 25 unweighted cases MONITORING THE SITUATION OF CHILDREN AND WOMEN 181 Early Marriage in Roma Settlements Early Marriage in Roma Settlements Almost 17 percent of women aged 20–49 in Roma Almost 17 percent of women aged 20–49 in Roma settlements were married before the age of 15 and 54 settlements were married before the age of 15 and 54 percent of them married before 18. Nearly half of the percent of them married before 18. Nearly half of the young women aged 15–19 years are currently married young women aged 15–19 years are currently married or in a union (44 percent). This proportion varies or in a union (44 percent). This proportion varies between urban (40 percent) and rural (52 percent), between urban (40 percent) and rural (52 percent), and is strongly related to the level of education too. and is strongly related to the level of education too. Comparing early marriages for women and men in Roma Comparing early marriages for women and men in Roma settlements, it is observed that 44 percent of women aged settlements, it is observed that 44 percent of women aged 15–19 years are currently married or in union, and only 15–19 years are currently married or in union, and only 19 percent of men. 19 percent of men. Table CP.3R: Early marriage, Roma Settlements, 2010 Percentage of women age 15–49 years who first married or entered a marital union before their 15th birthday, percentages of women age 20–49 years who first married or entered a marital union before their 15th and 18th birthdays, percentage of women age 15–19 years currently married or in union   Percentage married before age 151 Number of women age 15–49 years Percentage married before age 15 Percentage married before age 182 Number of women age 20–49 years Percentage of women 15–19 years currently married/in union3 Number of women age 15–19 years Area  Urban 13.0 1461 13.2 48.3 1180 40.3 281 Rural 23.4 657 24.4 66.1 509 51.9 147 Age  15–19 14.8 429 na na na 44.3 429 20–24 13.2 354 13.2 50.5 354 na na 25–29 15.2 363 15.2 48.5 363 na na 15–29 14.4 1145 14.2 49.5 717 44.3 429 30–34 18.9 320 18.9 54.1 320 na na 35–39 18.8 251 18.8 60.6 251 na na 40–44 17.8 193 17.8 58.1 193 na na 45–49 17.6 208 17.6 55.0 208 na na Education  None 26.2 363 27.6 59.0 317 (58.0) 46 Primary 17.3 1437 16.9 59.2 1137 48.8 299 Secondary .3 295 .4 21.3 218 22.0 77 Wealth index quintile  Poorest 21.8 396 22.9 63.0 312 49.9 84 Second 22.9 404 22.8 59.5 325 49.7 79 Middle 14.8 404 14.6 57.8 313 53.6 90 Fourth 14.8 468 15.1 46.8 377 39.5 91 Richest 8.0 447 9.0 44.1 363 28.7 84 Total 16.2 2118 16.6 53.7 1689 44.3 429 1 MICS indicator 8.6 2 MICS indicator 8.7 3 MICS indicator 8.8 ( ) Figures that are based on 25–49 unweighted cases MONITORING THE SITUATION OF CHILDREN AND WOMEN 181 MULTIPLE INDICATOR CLUSTER SURVEY 2010182 Table CP.3R.M: Early marriage, Roma Settlements, 2010 Percentage of men age 15–29 years who first married or entered a marital union before their 15th birthday, percentages of men age 20–29 years who first married or entered a marital union before their 15th and 18th birthdays, percentage of men age 15–19 years currently married or in union   Percentage married before age 15 Number of men age 15–29 years Percentage married before age 15 Percentage married before age 18 Number of men age 20–29 years Percentage of men 15–19 years currently married/in union1 Number of men age 15–19 years Area  Urban 3.4 598 4.2 20.0 409 16.6 189 Rural 4.7 279 5.5 36.1 173 23.2 106 Age  15–19 2.4 295 na na na 19.0 295 20–24 3.4 293 3.4 25.9 293 na na 25–29 5.7 289 5.7 23.6 289 na na Education  None 3.8 66 3.2 24.4 55 (*) 12 Primary 5.2 599 6.1 31.3 406 25.6 193 Secondary .0 202 .0 3.5 113 4.4 90 Wealth index quintile  Poorest 4.7 191 6.5 31.2 125 10.0 66 Second 3.5 166 3.5 28.3 99 23.6 67 Middle 2.7 172 .7 16.8 114 (19.1) 57 Fourth 6.5 185 9.3 31.7 129 (30.6) 56 Richest 1.3 163 1.9 15.0 114 (11.6) 49 Total 3.8 877 4.6 24.8 582 19.0 295 1 MICS indicator 8.8 ( ) Figures that are based on 25–49 unweighted cases (*) Figures that are based on less than 25 unweighted cases Tables CP.4R and CP.4R.M present the proportion of Tables CP.4R and CP.4R.M present the proportion of women and men who were first married or entered into women and men who were first married or entered into a marital union before reaching the ages of 15 and 18, by a marital union before reaching the ages of 15 and 18, by residence and age groups. The proportion of women aged residence and age groups. The proportion of women aged between 15–49 years in Roma settlements married before between 15–49 years in Roma settlements married before the age of 15 is 16 percent. As for men aged between 15–29 the age of 15 is 16 percent. As for men aged between 15–29 years, the percentage married before the age of 15 is 4 years, the percentage married before the age of 15 is 4 percent. Examining the percentages married before the percent. Examining the percentages married before the ages of 15 and 18 by different age groups allows us to see ages of 15 and 18 by different age groups allows us to see the trends in early marriage over time. the trends in early marriage over time. MULTIPLE INDICATOR CLUSTER SURVEY 2010182 MONITORING THE SITUATION OF CHILDREN AND WOMEN 183 Table CP.4R: Trends in early marriage, Roma Settlements, 2010 Percentage of women who were first married or entered into a marital union before age 15 and 18, by residence and age groups Urban Rural All Percentage of women married before age 15 Number of women Percentage of women married before age 18 Number of women Percentage of women married before age 15 Number of women Percentage of women married before age 18 Number of women Percentage of women married before age 15 Number of women Percentage of women married before age 18 Number of women Age  15–19 12.1 281 na na 19.8 147 na na 14.8 429 na na 20–24 11.8 245 44.5 245 16.5 109 63.8 109 13.2 354 50.5 354 25–29 13.2 253 42.4 253 19.7 109 62.7 109 15.2 363 48.5 363 15–29 12.4 780 43.4 498 18.8 366 63.3 219 14.4 1145 49.5 717 30–34 14.2 239 49.1 239 33.0 81 69.0 81 18.9 320 54.1 320 35–39 14.1 181 56.3 181 30.8 70 71.9 70 18.8 251 60.6 251 40–44 13.7 118 56.8 118 24.2 75 60.0 75 17.8 193 58.1 193 45–49 12.7 144 47.0 144 28.6 64 72.8 64 17.6 208 55.0 208 Total 13.0 1461 48.3 1180 23.4 657 66.1 509 16.2 2118 53.7 1689 Table CP.4R.M: Trends in early marriage, Roma Settlements, 2010 Percentage of men who were first married or entered into a marital union before age 15 and 18, by residence and age groups Urban Rural All Percentage of men married before age 15 Number of men Percentage of men married before age 18 Number of men Percentage of men married before age 15 Number of men Percentage of men married before age 18 Number of men Percentage of men married before age 15 Number of men Percentage of men married before age 18 Number of men Age  15–19 1.9 189 na na 3.3 106 na na 2.4 295 na na 20–24 2.0 210 21.2 210 7.2 83 37.9 83 3.4 293 25.9 293 25–29 6.5 198 18.7 198 4.1 90 34.6 90 5.7 289 23.6 289 Total 3.4 598 20.0 409 4.7 279 36.1 173 3.8 877 24.8 582 Another component is the spousal age difference Another component is the spousal age difference with an indicator being the percentage of married/in with an indicator being the percentage of married/in union women who are 10 or more years younger than union women who are 10 or more years younger than their current spouse. Table CP.5R presents the results their current spouse. Table CP.5R presents the results of the age difference between husbands and wives. of the age difference between husbands and wives. More than half of the women aged between 20–24 More than half of the women aged between 20–24 are currently married to a man who is older by 0–4 are currently married to a man who is older by 0–4 years (57 percent). Overall, 24 percent of women aged years (57 percent). Overall, 24 percent of women aged between 15–19 are currently married to men who are between 15–19 are currently married to men who are older by 5–9 years. Low education, living in a rural older by 5–9 years. Low education, living in a rural area and socio-economic status are linked to marriage area and socio-economic status are linked to marriage with an older man.with an older man. MONITORING THE SITUATION OF CHILDREN AND WOMEN 183 MULTIPLE INDICATOR CLUSTER SURVEY 2010184 Table CP.5R: Spousal age difference, Roma Settlements, 2010 Percent distribution of women currently married/in union age 15–19 and 20–24 years according to the age difference with their husband or partner Percentage of currently married/in union women age 15–19 years whose husband or partner is: Number of women age 15–19 years currently married/ in union Percentage of currently married/in union women age 20–24 years whose husband or partner is: Number of women age 20–24 years currently married/ in union Younger 0–4 years older 5–9 years older 10+ years older1 Total Younger 0–4 years older 5–9 years older 10+ years older2 Total Area  Urban 7.0 67.8 23.8 1.4 100.0 113 20.4 58.5 17.8 3.3 100.0 191 Rural .5 72.1 23.4 4.0 100.0 76 15.2 54.6 21.7 8.5 100.0 91 Age  15–19 4.4 69.5 23.7 2.5 100.0 190 na na na na na na 20–24 na na na na na na 18.8 57.2 19.0 5.0 100.0 282 Education  None (3.8) (67.7) (26.0) (2.5) 100.0 27 11.5 48.0 31.1 9.5 100.0 60 Primary 4.5 71.2 21.6 2.8 100.0 146 20.8 58.8 16.1 4.3 100.0 196 Secondary (*) (*) (*) (*) 100.0 17 (20.3) (66.9) (12.9) (0.0) 100.0 26 Wealth index quintile  Poorest .7 59.1 36.8 3.4 100.0 42 15.3 37.4 34.6 12.7 100.0 59 Second (7.0) (64.1) (25.1) (3.8) 100.0 39 28.0 55.1 12.5 4.5 100.0 69 Middle (5.3) (68.1) (25.2) (1.4) 100.0 48 7.5 67.8 19.9 4.8 100.0 53 Fourth (0.0) (89.0) (8.0) (3.0) 100.0 36 19.4 69.4 11.2 .0 100.0 56 Richest (*) (*) (*) (*) 100.0 24 21.7 58.9 17.4 2.0 100.0 45 Total 4.4 69.5 23.7 2.5 100.0 190 18.8 57.2 19.0 5.0 100.0 282 1 MICS indicator 8.10a 2 MICS indicator 8.10b ( ) Figures that are based on 25–49 unweighted cases (*) Figures that are based on less than 25 unweighted cases MULTIPLE INDICATOR CLUSTER SURVEY 2010184 MONITORING THE SITUATION OF CHILDREN AND WOMEN 185 Attitudes towardAttitudes toward Domestic ViolenceDomestic Violence The Serbia MICS4 assessed the attitudes of women The Serbia MICS4 assessed the attitudes of women aged 15–49 and men aged 15–29 years towards wife/aged 15–49 and men aged 15–29 years towards wife/ partner beating for a variety of scenarios by asking partner beating for a variety of scenarios by asking the respondents whether husbands are justified in the respondents whether husbands are justified in hitting or beating their wives/partners for a variety hitting or beating their wives/partners for a variety of scenarios. These questions were asked to have an of scenarios. These questions were asked to have an indicators of cultural beliefs that tend to be associated indicators of cultural beliefs that tend to be associated with the prevalence of violence against women by with the prevalence of violence against women by their husbands/partners. The main assumption here is their husbands/partners. The main assumption here is that women that agree with the statements indicating that women that agree with the statements indicating that husbands/partners are justified to beat their that husbands/partners are justified to beat their wives/partners in the situations described in reality wives/partners in the situations described in reality tend to be abused by their own husbands/partners tend to be abused by their own husbands/partners and similarly, men who agree with the statements in and similarly, men who agree with the statements in reality tend to exercise violence towards their wives reality tend to exercise violence towards their wives or or partners. partners. The responses to these questions can be found in The responses to these questions can be found in Table CP.6 for women and in Table CP.6M for men. Table CP.6 for women and in Table CP.6M for men. Overall, 3 percent of women in Serbia think that Overall, 3 percent of women in Serbia think that a husband/partner has a right to hit or beat his a husband/partner has a right to hit or beat his wife/partner for at least one of a variety of reasons. wife/partner for at least one of a variety of reasons. Women who approve of a husband’s violence, in Women who approve of a husband’s violence, in most cases agree and justify violence in instances most cases agree and justify violence in instances when the woman neglects the children (2 percent), when the woman neglects the children (2 percent), or if she demonstrates her autonomy, e.g. goes out or if she demonstrates her autonomy, e.g. goes out without telling her husband or argues with him without telling her husband or argues with him (1 percent). Around 1 percent of women believe (1 percent). Around 1 percent of women believe that a husband has a right to hit or beat his wife/that a husband has a right to hit or beat his wife/ partner if she refuses to have sex with him and less partner if she refuses to have sex with him and less than 1 percent if she burns the food. Acceptance is than 1 percent if she burns the food. Acceptance is more common among those living in the poorest more common among those living in the poorest households, among the less educated, and also households, among the less educated, and also among currently or formerly married women. One among currently or formerly married women. One in ten women from the poorest quintile or with in ten women from the poorest quintile or with primary education agrees that a husband/partner primary education agrees that a husband/partner has a right to hit or beat his wife/partner for at least has a right to hit or beat his wife/partner for at least one of a variety of reasons. One in twenty women in one of a variety of reasons. One in twenty women in rural areas agrees with the same statement. rural areas agrees with the same statement. As shown in Table CP.6M, men are more likely than As shown in Table CP.6M, men are more likely than women aged 15–29 to agree with one of the reasons to women aged 15–29 to agree with one of the reasons to justify wife beating (7 percent of men compared to 2 justify wife beating (7 percent of men compared to 2 percent of women). Some 4 percent of men agree that percent of women). Some 4 percent of men agree that a husband has a right to beat his wife if she neglects a husband has a right to beat his wife if she neglects the children, 3 percent agree if she argues with him the children, 3 percent agree if she argues with him and 2 percent agree if she goes out without telling him. and 2 percent agree if she goes out without telling him. Young men living in the households within the poorest Young men living in the households within the poorest quintile are much more likely to agree with one of the quintile are much more likely to agree with one of the reasons (17 percent) than men living in the richest reasons (17 percent) than men living in the richest quintile (2 percent). The percentage of young men quintile (2 percent). The percentage of young men approving of at least one reason is highest in Sumadija approving of at least one reason is highest in Sumadija and Western Serbia region (11 percent) and lowest in and Western Serbia region (11 percent) and lowest in Southern and Eastern Serbia region (4 percent) Southern and Eastern Serbia region (4 percent) MULTIPLE INDICATOR CLUSTER SURVEY 2010186 Table CP.6: Attitudes toward domestic violence, Serbia, 2010 Percentage of women age 15–49 years who believe a husband is justified in beating his wife/partner in various circumstances   Percentage of women age 15–49 years who believe a husband is justified in beating his wife/partner: Number of women age 15–49 years If goes out without telling him If she neglects the children If she argues with him If she refuses sex with him If she burns the food For any of these reasons1 Region Belgrade .7 1.6 .7 .6 .5 2.2 1142 Vojvodina .6 3.0 .5 .3 .0 3.2 1376 Sumadija and Western Serbia 1.4 2.4 1.4 .7 .3 3.2 1517 Southern and Eastern Serbia .8 1.7 1.4 .6 .5 2.8 1351 Area  Urban .6 1.2 .7 .3 .0 1.4 3155 Rural 1.3 3.7 1.5 1.0 .8 5.1 2230 Age  15–19 .8 1.6 .3 .3 .4 2.4 659 20–24 .9 2.1 .6 .6 .2 2.6 705 25–29 .3 1.5 .5 .2 .2 2.0 846 15–29 .6 1.7 .5 .3 .2 2.3 2210 30–34 .8 2.4 1.0 .1 .0 2.6 775 35–39 1.3 1.7 .8 1.2 .2 2.5 791 40–44 .5 2.5 1.1 .5 .5 3.0 703 45–49 1.5 3.6 2.5 1.0 .9 4.9 905 Marital/Union status  Currently married/in union 1.3 2.8 1.4 .7 .5 3.7 3405 Formerly married/in union 1.0 4.6 1.5 .9 .0 4.7 325 Never married/in union .0 .6 .1 .1 .1 .9 1655 Education  Primary 3.8 7.7 5.2 2.1 1.7 10.5 704 Secondary .5 1.6 .4 .4 .2 2.1 3067 Higher .0 .5 .0 .0 .0 .5 1587 Wealth index quintile  Poorest 4.6 8.6 4.7 3.1 1.4 11.2 750 Second .6 2.8 1.0 .3 .4 3.5 1066 Middle .6 1.1 .8 .4 .3 1.8 1080 Fourth .0 .9 .1 .0 .0 .9 1217 Richest .1 .2 .0 .0 .0 .3 1273 Total .9 2.2 1.0 .6 .3 2.9 5385 1 MICS indicator 8.14 MONITORING THE SITUATION OF CHILDREN AND WOMEN 187 Table CP.6M: Attitudes toward domestic violence, Serbia, 2010 Percentage of men age 15–29 years who believe a husband is justified in beating his wife/partner in various circumstances   Percentage of men age 15–29 years who believe a husband is justified in beating his wife/partner: Number of men age 15–29 years If goes out without telling him If she neglects the children If she argues with him If she refuses sex with him If she burns the food For any of these reasons Region Belgrade 2.7 3.3 1.9 .9 .1 5.3 319 Vojvodina .6 4.0 1.6 .5 .4 5.6 408 Sumadija and Western Serbia 3.7 6.8 4.9 .7 1.5 11.0 448 Southern and Eastern Serbia .1 2.6 1.3 .5 .0 3.8 408 Area  Urban .4 2.7 1.6 .2 .3 4.0 908 Rural 3.5 6.5 3.7 1.2 .9 10.1 675 Age  15–19 .7 4.0 2.0 .3 .3 5.6 465 20–24 2.9 5.0 3.1 .6 .3 7.9 512 25–29 1.6 3.9 2.4 .9 1.0 6.3 606 Marital/Union status  Currently married/in union 3.5 5.6 3.3 1.6 2.0 10.3 290 Formerly married/in union (*) (*) (*) (*) (*) (*) 19 Never married/in union 1.4 4.0 2.4 .4 .2 5.8 1274 Education  Primary 9.5 16.0 6.6 2.8 .5 22.0 120 Secondary 1.5 4.1 1.9 .6 .8 6.1 1032 Higher .0 1.4 2.6 .0 .0 3.1 429 Wealth index quintile  Poorest 4.9 12.3 6.6 1.4 .6 16.9 235 Second 1.8 2.8 1.8 1.2 1.3 5.4 326 Middle 3.0 6.9 3.6 .6 .5 10.5 321 Fourth .2 .8 .1 .3 .3 1.4 334 Richest .0 1.4 1.8 .0 .2 2.4 367 Total 1.7 4.3 2.5 .6 .6 6.6 1583 (*) Figures that are based on less than 25 unweighted cases MULTIPLE INDICATOR CLUSTER SURVEY 2010188 Attitudes toward Domestic ViolenceAttitudes toward Domestic Violence in Roma Settlements in Roma Settlements Overall, 20 percent of women in Roma Settlements Overall, 20 percent of women in Roma Settlements feel that a husband/partner has a right to hit or beat feel that a husband/partner has a right to hit or beat his wife/partner for at least one of a variety of reasons. his wife/partner for at least one of a variety of reasons. Women who approve a husband’s violence, in most cases Women who approve a husband’s violence, in most cases agree and justify violence where the woman neglects agree and justify violence where the woman neglects the children (18 percent), or if she demonstrates her the children (18 percent), or if she demonstrates her autonomy, e.g. goes out without telling her husband or autonomy, e.g. goes out without telling her husband or argues with him (12 percent). Around 8 percent of women argues with him (12 percent). Around 8 percent of women believe that a husband has a right to hit or beat his wife/believe that a husband has a right to hit or beat his wife/ partner if she refuses to have sex with him and almost partner if she refuses to have sex with him and almost 6 percent believe violence is justified if she burns the 6 percent believe violence is justified if she burns the food. Acceptance is more common among those living food. Acceptance is more common among those living in the poorest households, among the less educated, in the poorest households, among the less educated, and also among currently married women. Every third and also among currently married women. Every third woman from the poorest quintile or without education woman from the poorest quintile or without education agrees that a husband/partner has a right to hit or beat agrees that a husband/partner has a right to hit or beat his wife/partner for at least one of a variety of reasons. his wife/partner for at least one of a variety of reasons. One in seven women in rural areas agrees with the same One in seven women in rural areas agrees with the same statement. The findings are presented in Table CP.6R.statement. The findings are presented in Table CP.6R. As shown in Table CP.6R.M, men are more likely than As shown in Table CP.6R.M, men are more likely than women to agree with one of the reasons to justify wife women to agree with one of the reasons to justify wife beating (31 percent of men compared to 19 percent of beating (31 percent of men compared to 19 percent of women, both aged between 15–29). In total, 27 percent women, both aged between 15–29). In total, 27 percent of men agree that a husband has a right to beat his wife of men agree that a husband has a right to beat his wife if she neglects the children, 21 percent if she argues if she neglects the children, 21 percent if she argues with him, and 20 percent if she goes out without telling with him, and 20 percent if she goes out without telling him. Men living in households within the poorest him. Men living in households within the poorest quintile are much more likely to agree with one of the quintile are much more likely to agree with one of the reasons (50 percent) compared to those in the richest reasons (50 percent) compared to those in the richest quintile (13 percent). quintile (13 percent). Table CP.6R: Attitudes toward domestic violence, Roma Settlements, 2010 Percentage of women age 15–49 years who believe a husband is justified in beating his wife/partner in various circumstances   Percentage of women age 15–49 years who believe a husband is justified in beating his wife/partner: Number of women age 15–49 years If goes out without telling him If she neglects the children If she argues with him If she refuses sex with him If she burns the food For any of these reasons1 Area  Urban 9.6 15.6 10.8 7.2 5.0 17.8 1461 Rural 14.0 21.5 14.5 11.0 9.5 25.2 657 Age  15–19 11.8 16.5 11.6 9.5 8.1 18.0 429 20–24 11.1 15.2 14.6 10.2 9.1 19.3 354 25–29 9.8 18.5 13.1 5.7 4.6 21.0 363 15–29 10.9 16.7 13.0 8.5 7.3 19.3 1145 30–34 7.6 13.3 9.1 5.6 2.8 15.6 320 35–39 11.2 14.7 8.7 6.0 4.8 17.6 251 40–44 15.0 26.6 10.7 10.2 7.5 28.8 193 45–49 11.9 22.7 15.9 13.1 7.7 26.0 208 Marital/Union status  Currently married/ in union 12.1 19.4 13.6 9.5 7.1 22.4 1622 Formerly married/ in union 6.7 10.4 6.3 4.9 5.1 13.8 205 Never married/ in union 7.3 11.3 6.9 4.6 3.4 11.7 291 Education  None 20.6 31.6 22.0 19.9 12.5 35.8 363 Primary 10.4 16.9 11.6 7.2 6.2 19.6 1437 Secondary 2.7 4.1 2.4 .5 .3 4.8 295 Wealth index quintile  Poorest 18.9 28.0 19.6 17.2 14.4 34.6 396 Second 17.5 23.6 15.9 10.6 8.9 26.4 404 Middle 9.2 19.0 12.6 9.4 5.0 20.5 404 Fourth 6.3 12.0 8.7 3.6 2.7 13.4 468 Richest 4.3 6.9 4.6 2.6 2.2 8.2 447 Total 10.9 17.5 12.0 8.4 6.4 20.1 2118 1 MICS indicator 8.14 MULTIPLE INDICATOR CLUSTER SURVEY 2010188 MONITORING THE SITUATION OF CHILDREN AND WOMEN 189 Table CP.6R.M: Attitudes toward domestic violence, Roma Settlements, 2010 Percentage of men age 15–29 years who believe a husband is justified in beating his wife/partner in various circumstances   Percentage of men age 15–29 years who believe a husband is justified in beating his wife/partner: Number of men age 15–29 years If goes out without telling him If she neglects the children If she argues with him If she refuses sex with him If she burns the food For any of these reasons Area  Urban 17.9 24.1 18.2 12.1 4.8 28.0 598 Rural 23.5 32.8 27.0 19.5 5.2 38.8 279 Age  15–19 19.5 29.9 21.4 15.6 5.3 32.9 295 20–24 20.1 26.7 22.8 15.0 3.7 33.6 293 25–29 19.4 23.8 18.8 12.8 5.8 27.7 289 Marital/Union status  Currently married/in union 22.3 27.4 23.0 13.8 3.9 32.7 478 Formerly married/in union (22.0) (28.1) (22.6) (12.5) (5.6) (35.4) 57 Never married/in union 15.6 25.9 18.0 15.7 6.2 28.9 342 Education  None 39.2 52.0 44.2 34.1 11.7 56.9 66 Primary 22.3 29.3 23.4 15.9 5.1 34.7 599 Secondary 6.5 12.3 7.3 4.5 2.6 14.7 202 Wealth index quintile  Poorest 30.9 43.2 36.2 29.2 11.1 49.9 191 Second 26.9 27.8 22.0 14.5 5.0 34.7 166 Middle 19.1 31.1 23.6 12.9 4.2 33.9 172 Fourth 13.7 20.7 13.6 8.1 .9 23.4 185 Richest 6.5 9.2 7.9 6.1 2.9 12.9 163 Total 19.7 26.8 21.0 14.5 4.9 31.4 877 ( ) Figures that are based on 25–49 unweighted cases MONITORING THE SITUATION OF CHILDREN AND WOMEN 189 MULTIPLE INDICATOR CLUSTER SURVEY 2010190 Knowledge about HIV TransmissionKnowledge about HIV Transmission and Misconceptions about HIV/AIDSand Misconceptions about HIV/AIDS Two of the most important prerequisites for reducing Two of the most important prerequisites for reducing the rate of HIV infection are accurate knowledge of the rate of HIV infection are accurate knowledge of how HIV is transmitted and strategies for preventing how HIV is transmitted and strategies for preventing transmission. Correct information is the first step toward transmission. Correct information is the first step toward raising awareness and giving young people the tools raising awareness and giving young people the tools to protect themselves from infection. Misconceptions to protect themselves from infection. Misconceptions about HIV are common and can confuse young people about HIV are common and can confuse young people and hinder prevention efforts. Different regions are likely and hinder prevention efforts. Different regions are likely to have variations in misconceptions although some to have variations in misconceptions although some appear to be universal (for example that sharing food appear to be universal (for example that sharing food or mosquito bites can transmit HIV). The UN General or mosquito bites can transmit HIV). The UN General Assembly Special Session on HIV/AIDS (UNGASS) Assembly Special Session on HIV/AIDS (UNGASS) called on governments to improve the knowledge and called on governments to improve the knowledge and skills of young people to protect themselves from HIV. skills of young people to protect themselves from HIV. The indicators to measure this goal as well as the MDG The indicators to measure this goal as well as the MDG of reducing HIV infections by half include improving of reducing HIV infections by half include improving the level of knowledge of HIV and its prevention, and the level of knowledge of HIV and its prevention, and changing behaviours to prevent further spread of the changing behaviours to prevent further spread of the disease. The HIV module was administered to women disease. The HIV module was administered to women between 15–49 and men between 15–29 years of age.between 15–49 and men between 15–29 years of age. XIIXII HIV/AIDS AND HIV/AIDS AND SEXUAL BEHAVIOURSEXUAL BEHAVIOUR Table HA.1: Knowledge about HIV transmission, misconceptions about HIV/AIDS, and comprehensive knowledge about HIV transmission, Serbia, 2010 Percentage of women age 15–49 years who know the main ways of preventing HIV transmission, percentage who know that a healthy looking person can have the AIDS virus, percentage who reject common misconceptions, and percentage who have comprehensive knowledge about HIV transmission Percentage who have heard of AIDS Percentage who know transmission can be prevented by: Having only one faithful uninfected sex partner Using a condom every time Region  Belgrade 99.4 91.1 94.0 Vojvodina 98.7 87.1 90.6 Sumadija and Western Serbia 98.6 82.6 88.2 Southern and Eastern Serbia 99.3 92.1 90.2 Area  Urban 99.4 90.7 94.3 Rural 98.3 83.9 85.2 Age  15–24 99.1 87.2 92.1 25–29 99.2 90.8 92.6 15–29 99.2 88.5 92.3 30–39 98.7 88.9 92.2 40–49 98.9 86.0 86.5 Marital status  Ever married/ in union 98.7 86.5 89.0 Never married/ in union 99.5 91.1 94.1 Women’s education  Primary 95.8 71.4 68.6 Secondary 99.6 89.0 92.6 Higher 100.0 94.6 97.8 Wealth index quintiles  Poorest 95.3 74.0 71.1 Second 99.1 87.1 90.2 Middle 99.6 88.4 91.6 Fourth 99.7 91.7 95.4 Richest 99.8 92.8 96.8 Total 99.0 87.9 90.5 1 MICS indicator 9.1 MONITORING THE SITUATION OF CHILDREN AND WOMEN 191 One indicator which is both an MDG and UNGASS One indicator which is both an MDG and UNGASS indicator is the percentage of young women who have indicator is the percentage of young women who have comprehensive and correct knowledge of HIV prevention comprehensive and correct knowledge of HIV prevention and transmission. In Serbia’s MICS all interviewees and transmission. In Serbia’s MICS all interviewees (women and men) who had heard of AIDS were asked (women and men) who had heard of AIDS were asked whether they knew of the two main ways of HIV whether they knew of the two main ways of HIV transmission — having only one faithful uninfected transmission — having only one faithful uninfected partner and using a condom every time. The results partner and using a condom every time. The results are presented in Table HA.1. In Serbia, nearly all of the are presented in Table HA.1. In Serbia, nearly all of the Percentage of women who know both ways Percentage who know that a healthy looking person can have the AIDS virus Percentage who know that HIV cannot be transmitted by: Percentage who reject the two most common misconceptions and know that a healthy looking person can have the AIDS virus Percentage with comprehensive knowledge1 Number of womenMosquito bites Supernatural means Sharing food with someone with AIDS 88.0 88.9 82.0 97.4 83.8 68.8 65.7 1142 84.1 82.3 69.2 94.3 67.8 50.8 47.5 1376 78.3 80.7 71.1 89.8 71.8 52.2 46.0 1517 87.0 70.0 79.5 93.4 79.3 56.1 54.5 1351 88.3 85.5 79.7 96.2 81.0 64.2 60.3 3155 77.9 72.6 68.5 89.5 67.0 45.2 41.9 2230 84.0 81.7 77.1 94.5 76.3 58.1 54.1 1364 87.5 84.6 80.5 95.1 77.7 62.6 59.0 846 85.3 82.8 78.4 94.7 76.8 59.8 56.0 2210 85.8 82.2 74.7 94.3 77.0 58.1 55.0 1566 80.4 74.5 70.7 90.9 71.3 49.9 45.8 1609 82.2 77.3 72.1 92.0 71.9 51.9 48.4 3730 88.1 86.5 81.7 96.8 82.8 66.4 62.3 1655 60.3 50.1 50.8 77.7 44.7 23.0 21.1 704 85.4 80.9 73.6 94.9 75.6 53.7 49.6 3067 93.1 93.3 89.5 99.0 89.3 77.3 73.5 1587 62.4 59.2 52.8 81.1 50.8 27.8 25.2 750 82.6 77.5 70.2 91.2 68.8 49.7 45.6 1066 85.1 80.1 75.1 94.3 75.9 54.6 51.0 1080 89.8 82.6 81.8 96.6 81.2 63.1 59.6 1217 91.5 92.5 85.6 98.8 88.6 73.8 69.6 1273 84.0 80.2 75.0 93.4 75.2 56.4 52.7 5385 interviewed women (99 percent) had heard of AIDS. interviewed women (99 percent) had heard of AIDS. However, the percentage of women who knew of two However, the percentage of women who knew of two ways of preventing HIV transmission was 84 percent. ways of preventing HIV transmission was 84 percent. Overall, 88 percent of women knew of having one faithful Overall, 88 percent of women knew of having one faithful uninfected sex partner and 91 percent knew about using uninfected sex partner and 91 percent knew about using a condom every time, as two ways of preventing HIV a condom every time, as two ways of preventing HIV transmission. The level of knowledge was higher in transmission. The level of knowledge was higher in urban than in rural areas, and among women with higher urban than in rural areas, and among women with higher education living in households within richer quintiles.education living in households within richer quintiles. MULTIPLE INDICATOR CLUSTER SURVEY 2010192 Similar patterns are observed for men 15–29 years old Similar patterns are observed for men 15–29 years old (Table HA.1M). The level of knowledge is higher in urban (Table HA.1M). The level of knowledge is higher in urban than in rural areas, and among men with higher education than in rural areas, and among men with higher education living in households within richer quintiles.living in households within richer quintiles. Table HA.1M: Knowledge about HIV transmission, misconceptions about HIV/AIDS, and comprehensive knowledge about HIV transmission, Serbia, 2010 Percentage of men age 15–29 years who know the main ways of preventing HIV transmission, percentage who know that a healthy looking person can have the AIDS virus, percentage who reject common misconceptions, and percentage who have comprehensive knowledge about HIV transmission   Percentage who have heard of AIDS Percentage who know transmission can be prevented by: Percentage of men who know both ways Percentage who know that a healthy looking person can have the AIDS virus Percentage who know that HIV cannot be transmitted by: Percentage who reject the two most common misconceptions and know that a healthy looking person can have the AIDS virus Percentage with com- prehensive knowledge Number of menHaving only one faithful uninfected sex partner Using a condom every time Mosquito bites Supernatural means Sharing food with someone with AIDS Region  Belgrade 99.9 93.7 95.5 91.0 88.0 79.3 95.7 84.1 66.5 64.5 319 Vojvodina 99.8 82.1 95.0 80.1 80.4 72.8 91.8 70.8 49.7 42.6 408 Sumadija and Western Serbia 98.5 91.2 89.3 85.6 80.8 69.8 92.0 67.0 48.9 45.6 448 Southern and Eastern Serbia 99.8 97.2 97.2 94.8 67.3 75.3 88.6 79.4 49.6 46.9 408 Area  Urban 99.7 92.6 95.6 90.2 80.8 75.9 94.3 79.2 58.3 54.9 908 Rural 99.2 88.6 92.0 84.2 75.7 71.3 88.5 68.4 45.5 41.1 675 Age  15–24 99.2 90.5 94.0 87.4 78.1 72.5 90.8 73.2 50.8 47.6 977 25–29 99.9 91.6 94.1 88.0 79.5 76.1 93.3 76.9 56.1 51.2 606 Marital status  Ever married/ in union 99.7 93.0 93.1 89.9 74.6 67.9 89.1 67.2 43.5 42.5 309 Never married/ in union 99.4 90.4 94.3 87.1 79.6 75.4 92.4 76.4 55.1 50.6 1274 Men’s education  Primary 98.9 78.4 81.9 71.9 59.7 55.1 78.4 49.9 24.7 23.0 120 Secondary 99.3 91.1 94.7 88.0 76.5 71.5 91.1 71.4 48.2 45.2 1032 Higher 100.0 94.0 96.0 91.3 89.2 84.9 97.4 89.5 72.0 65.6 429 Wealth index quintiles  Poorest 99.3 79.9 85.3 73.4 66.9 66.1 83.5 59.0 36.2 29.3 235 Second 99.5 94.2 94.3 90.8 76.9 66.1 88.9 65.8 43.6 40.9 326 Middle 98.5 88.6 91.6 83.8 76.2 75.8 93.4 73.1 51.6 47.7 321 Fourth 100.0 92.8 96.8 89.8 81.1 73.2 92.7 79.8 53.0 48.8 334 Richest 100.0 95.4 99.0 95.3 87.7 84.7 97.4 89.0 72.5 70.0 367 Total 99.5 90.9 94.0 87.6 78.6 73.9 91.8 74.6 52.8 49.0 1583 MONITORING THE SITUATION OF CHILDREN AND WOMEN 193 The results for young women and men (aged 15–24 years) The results for young women and men (aged 15–24 years) are presented in Table HA.2 and Table HA.2M. The level are presented in Table HA.2 and Table HA.2M. The level of knowledge is higher in urban than rural areas, and of knowledge is higher in urban than rural areas, and among women or men with higher education living in among women or men with higher education living in households within richer quintiles. households within richer quintiles. Table HA.2: Knowledge about HIV transmission, misconceptions about HIV/AIDS, and comprehensive knowledge about HIV transmission among young women, Serbia, 2010 Percentage of young women age 15–24 years who know the main ways of preventing HIV transmission, percentage who know that a healthy looking person can have the AIDS virus, percentage who reject common misconceptions, and percentage who have comprehensive knowledge about HIV transmission   Percentage who have heard of AIDS Percentage who know transmission can be prevented by: Percentage of women who know both ways Percentage who know that a healthy looking person can have the AIDS virus Percentage who know that HIV cannot be transmitted by: Percentage who reject the two most common misconceptions and know that a healthy looking person can have the AIDS virus Percentage with com- prehensive knowledge1 Number of women age 15–24 Having only one faithful uninfected sex partner Using a condom every time Mosquito bites Supernatural means Sharing food with someone with AIDS Region  Belgrade 99.9 86.5 92.9 83.4 87.3 83.9 96.9 85.2 72.4 67.8 321 Vojvodina 99.3 87.4 94.2 85.7 79.3 69.0 95.2 66.2 48.1 44.9 317 Sumadija and Western Serbia 98.2 83.8 90.3 80.8 85.3 70.5 91.8 71.2 51.4 45.6 392 Southern and Eastern Serbia 99.4 91.6 91.7 86.7 74.2 86.1 94.5 83.3 61.7 59.8 333 Area  Urban 99.2 88.2 95.4 87.2 86.1 80.9 95.9 82.6 66.8 62.7 814 Rural 99.0 85.6 87.3 79.3 75.1 71.5 92.3 67.0 45.2 41.4 549 Age  15–19 99.1 87.6 90.6 84.5 82.2 73.3 94.6 75.8 56.4 52.9 659 20–24 99.2 86.7 93.6 83.6 81.1 80.7 94.4 76.7 59.7 55.2 705 Marital status  Ever married/ in union 97.9 74.5 82.2 68.7 65.2 66.1 85.0 58.3 36.4 32.4 255 Never married/ in union 99.4 90.1 94.4 87.5 85.5 79.6 96.6 80.4 63.1 59.1 1109 Women’s education  Primary 95.9 68.4 62.9 53.0 47.5 48.9 74.3 41.4 18.1 15.4 112 Secondary 99.4 86.5 93.5 84.4 81.7 74.1 95.6 74.1 53.5 49.5 789 Higher 100.0 93.9 98.0 92.0 90.8 90.1 98.5 89.5 76.6 72.2 457 Wealth index quintiles  Poorest 97.5 76.9 74.4 64.8 64.0 58.7 86.1 54.2 31.2 28.4 199 Second 98.6 86.6 92.1 83.3 81.0 74.0 93.7 72.2 55.3 51.4 276 Middle 99.2 84.5 94.0 82.9 79.7 73.6 93.3 75.1 52.7 49.1 267 Fourth 99.8 93.0 97.0 91.8 82.4 86.4 96.3 79.8 64.7 61.9 287 Richest 100.0 90.9 97.2 90.2 93.7 85.5 99.5 90.8 75.1 69.0 334 Total 99.1 87.2 92.1 84.0 81.7 77.1 94.5 76.3 58.1 54.1 1364 1 MICS indicator 9.2; MDG indicator 6.3 MULTIPLE INDICATOR CLUSTER SURVEY 2010194 Table HA.2M: Knowledge about HIV transmission, misconceptions about HIV/AIDS, and comprehensive knowledge about HIV transmission among young men, Serbia, 2010 Percentage of young men age 15–24 years who know the main ways of preventing HIV transmission, percentage who know that a healthy looking person can have the AIDS virus, percentage who reject common misconceptions, and percentage who have comprehensive knowledge about HIV transmission   Percentage who have heard of AIDS Percentage who know transmission can be prevented by: Percentage of men who know both ways Percentage who know that a healthy looking person can have the AIDS virus Percentage who know that HIV cannot be transmitted by: Percentage who reject the two most common misconceptions and know that a healthy looking person can have the AIDS virus Percentage with com- prehensive knowledge1 Number of men age 15–24 Having only one faithful uninfected sex partner Using a condom every time Mosquito bites Supernatural means Sharing food with someone with AIDS Region Belgrade 99.8 91.7 94.0 88.5 84.8 75.3 94.6 81.7 58.9 56.7 192 Vojvodina 99.8 82.8 96.0 81.4 81.1 69.7 92.1 67.0 45.1 40.1 263 Sumadija and Western Serbia 97.8 91.3 88.7 85.2 79.2 70.1 90.9 67.7 50.3 46.9 280 Southern and Eastern Serbia 99.7 97.0 98.0 95.6 68.5 76.3 86.3 79.5 51.0 49.4 242 Area Urban 99.6 92.0 95.5 89.8 79.2 73.5 92.6 77.6 54.8 51.6 556 Rural 98.7 88.5 92.1 84.2 76.8 71.3 88.5 67.3 45.4 42.3 422 Age 15–19 99.5 86.9 93.7 83.9 74.7 69.9 88.7 71.2 46.0 43.0 465 20–24 98.9 93.7 94.3 90.6 81.3 74.9 92.8 75.0 55.1 51.8 512 Marital status Ever married/ in union 98.9 89.8 93.4 87.8 78.4 62.5 84.0 59.3 36.2 35.7 77 Never married/in union 99.2 90.5 94.0 87.4 78.1 73.4 91.4 74.4 52.0 48.6 900 Men’s education  Primary 98.2 74.0 79.4 69.8 61.2 51.9 73.1 50.3 25.6 23.0 72 Secondary 99.0 91.0 94.9 87.9 77.1 71.6 90.6 70.8 48.3 46.0 680 Higher 100.0 94.2 96.1 91.4 86.9 82.0 97.7 87.9 66.6 60.7 224 Wealth index quintiles  Poorest 99.0 75.9 84.7 72.1 63.9 64.5 79.5 54.7 32.0 27.7 145 Second 99.0 97.9 97.6 96.5 81.8 70.9 89.0 68.1 48.0 47.9 186 Middle 97.8 87.2 90.6 80.7 73.6 71.9 91.9 74.0 50.6 46.6 214 Fourth 100.0 93.7 96.1 90.0 81.3 69.1 94.0 74.3 48.1 43.9 217 Richest 100.0 93.9 98.4 93.9 85.9 83.4 95.8 88.2 68.8 65.5 215 Total 99.2 90.5 94.0 87.4 78.1 72.5 90.8 73.2 50.8 47.6 977 1 MICS indicator 9.2; MDG indicator 6.3 MONITORING THE SITUATION OF CHILDREN AND WOMEN 195 Tables HA.1 and HA.2 also present the percentage of Tables HA.1 and HA.2 also present the percentage of women who can correctly identify misconceptions women who can correctly identify misconceptions concerning HIV. The indicator is based on the two most concerning HIV. The indicator is based on the two most common and relevant misconceptions, that HIV can be common and relevant misconceptions, that HIV can be transmitted by mosquito bites and sharing food with transmitted by mosquito bites and sharing food with someone with AIDS. The table also provides information on someone with AIDS. The table also provides information on whether women know that HIV cannot be transmitted by whether women know that HIV cannot be transmitted by sharing food with someone with AIDS. The knowledge that sharing food with someone with AIDS. The knowledge that HIV can’t be transmitted by sharing food is higher in urban HIV can’t be transmitted by sharing food is higher in urban areas, with women with higher education and those living areas, with women with higher education and those living in households within the richer quintiles. Of the women in households within the richer quintiles. Of the women interviewed, 56 percent reject the two most common interviewed, 56 percent reject the two most common misconceptions and know that a healthy-looking person can misconceptions and know that a healthy-looking person can be infected. The percentage of women know that mosquito be infected. The percentage of women know that mosquito bites and sharing food with someone with AIDS cannot bites and sharing food with someone with AIDS cannot transmit HIV is the same for both, 75 percent. Overall, 93 transmit HIV is the same for both, 75 percent. Overall, 93 percent of women know that supernatural means cannot percent of women know that supernatural means cannot transmit HIV, while 80 percent of women know that a transmit HIV, while 80 percent of women know that a healthy-looking person can be infected.healthy-looking person can be infected. Women who have comprehensive knowledge about Women who have comprehensive knowledge about HIV prevention include those women who know of the HIV prevention include those women who know of the two ways of HIV prevention (having only one faithful two ways of HIV prevention (having only one faithful uninfected partner and using a condom every time); uninfected partner and using a condom every time); who know that a healthy looking person can have the who know that a healthy looking person can have the AIDS virus, and who reject the two most common AIDS virus, and who reject the two most common misconceptions. Tables HA.1 and HA.2 also present the misconceptions. Tables HA.1 and HA.2 also present the percentage of women with comprehensive knowledge. percentage of women with comprehensive knowledge. Comprehensive knowledge of HIV prevention methods Comprehensive knowledge of HIV prevention methods and transmission is still low although there are and transmission is still low although there are differences by residence. Overall, 53 percent of women differences by residence. Overall, 53 percent of women were found to have comprehensive knowledge, and were found to have comprehensive knowledge, and this was slightly higher in urban areas (60 percent). As this was slightly higher in urban areas (60 percent). As expected, the percentage of women with comprehensive expected, the percentage of women with comprehensive knowledge increases with the woman’s education level knowledge increases with the woman’s education level (Figure HA.1). Similar patterns are observed for men (Figure HA.1). Similar patterns are observed for men 15–29 years old (Table HA.1M and Table HA.2M).15–29 years old (Table HA.1M and Table HA.2M). Knowledge of mother-to-child transmission of HIV Knowledge of mother-to-child transmission of HIV is also an important first step for women to seek is also an important first step for women to seek HIV testing when they are pregnant in order to avoid HIV testing when they are pregnant in order to avoid infection in the baby. Women should know that HIV infection in the baby. Women should know that HIV can be transmitted during pregnancy, delivery, and can be transmitted during pregnancy, delivery, and through breastfeeding. The level of knowledge among through breastfeeding. The level of knowledge among women aged 15–49 years concerning mother-to-child women aged 15–49 years concerning mother-to-child transmission is presented in Table HA.3. Overall, 85 transmission is presented in Table HA.3. Overall, 85 percent of women know that HIV can be transmitted percent of women know that HIV can be transmitted from mother to child. The percentage of women who from mother to child. The percentage of women who know all three ways of mother-to-child transmission is know all three ways of mother-to-child transmission is 65 percent, while 14 percent of women did not know of 65 percent, while 14 percent of women did not know of any specific way. As expected, the percentage of women any specific way. As expected, the percentage of women with knowledge of mother-to-child transmission of with knowledge of mother-to-child transmission of HIV increases with the woman’s education level. It is HIV increases with the woman’s education level. It is also higher in urban than in rural areas. also higher in urban than in rural areas. Figure HA.1: Percentage of women who have comprehensive knowledge of HIV/AIDS transmission, Serbia, 2010 MULTIPLE INDICATOR CLUSTER SURVEY 2010196 Table HA.3: Knowledge of mother-to-child HIV transmission, Serbia, 2010 Percentage of women age 15–49 years who correctly identify means of HIV transmission from mother to child   Percentage who know HIV can be transmitted from mother to child Percent who know HIV can be transmitted: Does not know any of the specific means Number of women During pregnancy During delivery By breastfeeding All three means1 Region Belgrade 87.1 84.8 80.2 72.7 68.7 12.2 1142 Vojvodina 83.8 79.3 68.9 55.9 50.9 14.9 1376 Sumadija and Western Serbia 84.0 82.4 80.1 77.2 75.2 14.6 1517 Southern and Eastern Serbia 84.7 83.4 75.6 66.6 65.0 14.6 1351 Area  Urban 87.6 85.2 79.8 71.5 68.7 11.8 3155 Rural 80.8 78.5 71.0 63.4 59.9 17.5 2230 Age group  15–24 81.3 78.5 72.3 66.7 62.2 17.8 1364 25+ 86.0 83.7 77.5 68.7 66.0 12.9 4021 Age group  15–19 77.1 74.2 66.1 61.1 55.6 21.9 659 20–24 85.2 82.4 78.1 71.8 68.4 14.0 705 25–29 87.9 85.7 81.1 71.6 69.2 11.3 846 30–39 87.1 85.1 78.8 69.3 67.0 11.6 1566 40–49 83.9 81.3 74.2 66.5 63.4 15.1 1609 Marital status  Ever married/in union 85.0 82.8 76.0 67.2 64.5 13.7 3730 Never married/in union 84.4 81.5 76.6 70.3 66.5 15.1 1655 Education  Primary 66.7 64.6 54.1 47.6 43.7 29.1 704 Secondary 85.0 82.4 76.5 68.0 64.9 14.6 3067 Higher 93.7 91.5 86.3 78.8 75.9 6.3 1587 Wealth index quintiles  Poorest 69.1 65.9 59.8 52.0 48.5 26.2 750 Second 83.7 81.1 72.7 66.4 63.1 15.5 1066 Middle 85.5 83.3 77.8 67.8 65.5 14.0 1080 Fourth 87.3 84.8 79.7 70.8 67.3 12.3 1217 Richest 91.9 90.1 83.9 77.0 74.0 7.9 1273 Total 84.8 82.4 76.2 68.2 65.1 14.2 5385 1 MICS indicator 9.3 MONITORING THE SITUATION OF CHILDREN AND WOMEN 197 In Roma Settlements in Serbia, 72 percent of all women In Roma Settlements in Serbia, 72 percent of all women aged 15–49 years have heard of AIDS. Less than half aged 15–49 years have heard of AIDS. Less than half (46 percent) of them know two ways of preventing HIV (46 percent) of them know two ways of preventing HIV transmission. Overall, 53 percent of women know of transmission. Overall, 53 percent of women know of having one faithful uninfected sex partner and 52 percent having one faithful uninfected sex partner and 52 percent know of using a condom every time, as two ways of know of using a condom every time, as two ways of preventing HIV transmission. The level of knowledge is preventing HIV transmission. The level of knowledge is higher in urban than in rural areas, and among women higher in urban than in rural areas, and among women with higher education living in households within the with higher education living in households within the richer quintiles.richer quintiles. Table HA.1R: Knowledge about HIV transmission, misconceptions about HIV/AIDS, and comprehensive knowledge about HIV transmission, Roma Settlements, 2010 Percentage of women age 15–49 years who know the main ways of preventing HIV transmission, percentage who know that a healthy looking person can have the AIDS virus, percentage who reject common misconceptions, and percentage who have comprehensive knowledge about HIV transmission   Percentage who have heard of AIDS Percentage who know transmission can be prevented by: Percentage of women who know both ways Percentage who know that a healthy looking person can have the AIDS virus Percentage who know that HIV cannot be transmitted by: Percentage who reject the two most common misconceptions and know that a healthy looking person can have the AIDS virus Percentage with com- prehensive knowl- edge1 Number of women Having only one faithful uninfected sex partner Using a condom every time Mosquito bites Supernatural means Sharing food with someone with AIDS Area  Urban 75.6 55.4 54.9 48.2 47.3 34.6 54.4 32.5 17.2 14.6 1461 Rural 63.3 47.1 46.2 41.0 38.0 28.8 39.7 25.1 13.3 10.4 657 Age  15–24 72.4 53.9 52.7 46.7 46.3 34.1 48.4 29.4 14.5 12.2 783 25–29 78.9 54.6 58.4 48.8 47.8 42.9 55.9 37.9 22.0 18.2 363 15–29 74.5 54.1 54.5 47.4 46.8 36.9 50.8 32.1 16.9 14.1 1145 30–39 72.7 53.5 53.0 46.5 42.5 30.3 53.4 30.4 16.3 13.0 571 40–49 62.9 48.3 44.4 41.2 40.3 24.8 42.2 24.6 13.0 11.4 402 Marital status  Ever married/ in union 70.6 52.4 50.9 45.1 43.2 31.7 49.2 30.4 15.9 13.6 1827 Never married/in union 79.1 55.5 60.5 51.2 52.0 39.5 53.8 28.9 16.8 11.6 291 Women’s education  None 42.4 23.2 18.1 16.3 19.0 9.5 19.8 8.7 2.1 1.9 363 Primary 74.3 54.6 53.4 46.9 45.0 32.8 49.5 29.6 14.7 12.2 1437 Secondary 93.4 80.7 85.0 77.5 68.9 57.5 84.9 55.3 34.7 31.7 295 Wealth index quintiles  Poorest 50.5 31.1 27.6 22.1 27.1 15.7 25.8 13.9 6.0 3.8 396 Second 65.5 38.4 37.5 32.3 36.6 25.0 38.2 22.9 10.1 9.1 404 Middle 68.8 51.9 49.5 44.0 42.7 29.3 45.2 26.7 11.8 8.7 404 Fourth 82.1 65.3 65.0 58.0 57.1 47.8 69.0 44.2 29.7 26.0 468 Richest 88.2 72.9 76.2 68.7 54.9 42.5 65.7 39.9 19.7 16.4 447 Total 71.8 52.8 52.2 46.0 44.4 32.8 49.9 30.2 16.0 13.3 2118 1 MICS indicator 9.1 Knowledge about HIV Transmission andKnowledge about HIV Transmission and Misconceptions about HIV/AIDS in Roma Settlements Misconceptions about HIV/AIDS in Roma Settlements MONITORING THE SITUATION OF CHILDREN AND WOMEN 197 MULTIPLE INDICATOR CLUSTER SURVEY 2010198 Men between 15–29 years of age seem better informed Men between 15–29 years of age seem better informed about HIV/AIDS transmission and prevention then about HIV/AIDS transmission and prevention then women of the same age. Among men, 87 percent women of the same age. Among men, 87 percent have heard of AIDS and 58 percent know two ways of have heard of AIDS and 58 percent know two ways of preventing HIV transmission. Furthermore, 68 percent preventing HIV transmission. Furthermore, 68 percent know of having one faithful uninfected sex partner know of having one faithful uninfected sex partner and 65 percent know about using a condom every time, and 65 percent know about using a condom every time, as two ways of preventing HIV transmission. As with as two ways of preventing HIV transmission. As with women, knowledge on HIV/AIDS was higher among women, knowledge on HIV/AIDS was higher among urban, more educated men from higher wealth quintiles. urban, more educated men from higher wealth quintiles. The results for young women and men aged 15–24 are The results for young women and men aged 15–24 are separately presented in Table HA.2R and Table HA.2R.M.separately presented in Table HA.2R and Table HA.2R.M. Percentage who have heard of AIDS Percentage who know transmission can be prevented by: Having only one faithful uninfected sex partner Using a condom every time Area  Urban 90.0 70.0 67.1 Rural 80.5 62.1 58.9 Age  15–24 85.7 65.8 64.1 25–29 89.5 70.9 65.4 Marital status  Ever married/in union 86.0 66.7 63.6 Never married/in union 88.4 68.7 66.0 Men’s education  None 65.1 30.8 38.6 Primary 84.9 63.8 60.5 Secondary 99.6 89.5 83.3 Wealth index quintiles  Poorest 75.9 46.1 41.6 Second 82.3 59.9 62.0 Middle 88.5 74.9 69.8 Fourth 92.1 76.1 75.7 Richest 97.2 82.6 75.7 Total 87.0 67.5 64.5 Table HA.1R.M: Knowledge about HIV transmission, misconceptions about HIV/AIDS, and comprehensive knowledge about HIV transmission, Roma Settlements, 2010 Percentage of men age 15–29 years who know the main ways of preventing HIV transmission, percentage who know that a healthy looking person can have the AIDS virus, percentage who reject common misconceptions, and percentage who have comprehensive knowledge about HIV transmission Table HA.2R: Knowledge about HIV transmission, misconceptions about HIV/AIDS, and comprehensive knowledge about HIV transmission among young women, Roma Settlements, 2010 Percentage of young women age 15–24 years who know the main ways of preventing HIV transmission, percentage who know that a healthy looking person can have the AIDS virus, percentage who reject common misconceptions, and percentage who have comprehensive knowledge about HIV transmission Percentage who have heard of AIDS Percentage who know transmission can be prevented by: Having only one faithful uninfected sex partner Using a condom every time Area  Urban 76.6 57.5 55.0 Rural 63.8 46.3 47.9 Age  15–19 65.8 51.0 50.5 20–24 80.5 57.4 55.3 Marital status  Ever married/in union 70.4 51.7 48.8 Never married/in union 76.5 58.3 60.7 Women’s education  None 39.7 25.7 20.4 Primary 76.5 55.5 53.1 Secondary 84.0 76.8 80.6 Wealth index quintiles  Poorest 47.7 29.8 30.3 Second 72.3 45.5 43.1 Middle 69.3 55.5 48.5 Fourth 82.2 64.4 65.1 Richest 92.0 76.0 78.7 Total 72.4 53.9 52.7 1 MICS indicator 9.2; MDG indicator 6.3 MULTIPLE INDICATOR CLUSTER SURVEY 2010198 MONITORING THE SITUATION OF CHILDREN AND WOMEN 199 Percentage of men who know both ways Percentage who know that a healthy looking person can have the AIDS virus Percentage who know that HIV cannot be transmitted by: Percentage who reject the two most common misconceptions and know that a healthy looking person can have the AIDS virus Percentage with comprehensive knowledge Number of menMosquito bites Supernatural means Sharing food with someone with AIDS 60.0 58.7 35.8 69.5 32.5 15.9 13.9 598 52.4 45.3 27.9 57.3 23.9 10.6 9.5 279 56.5 55.3 32.4 62.3 28.8 13.1 11.1 588 59.9 52.7 35.1 72.4 31.6 16.6 15.4 289 57.3 52.1 33.0 65.5 29.5 14.0 12.7 535 58.1 58.3 33.7 65.8 30.1 14.6 12.3 342 26.9 31.5 8.6 37.9 17.3 2.5 2.5 66 53.2 51.5 29.5 62.1 23.0 9.6 7.8 599 79.4 69.3 50.4 83.4 51.7 29.2 27.8 202 34.2 35.3 22.0 45.5 15.9 5.5 3.1 191 51.0 49.4 26.3 54.1 22.2 6.8 5.7 166 63.8 52.8 32.2 67.2 28.5 14.8 13.0 172 70.4 67.0 39.7 75.9 38.6 20.7 19.0 185 70.8 69.6 47.3 87.5 44.9 24.0 22.6 163 57.6 54.5 33.3 65.6 29.7 14.2 12.5 877 Percentage of women who know both ways Percentage who know that a healthy looking person can have the AIDS virus Percentage who know that HIV cannot be transmitted by: Percentage who reject the two most common misconceptions and know that a healthy looking person can have the AIDS virus Percentage with comprehensive knowledge1 Number of women age 15–24Mosquito bites Supernatural means Sharing food with someone with AIDS 49.7 50.5 35.1 52.0 32.1 15.8 14.2 526 40.6 37.8 32.0 40.9 23.8 12.0 8.2 256 44.0 43.0 32.8 45.3 29.3 15.0 12.5 429 49.9 50.3 35.6 52.1 29.5 14.0 12.0 354 43.3 43.2 31.5 46.0 29.8 14.1 12.6 527 53.7 52.7 39.3 53.3 28.6 15.5 11.6 256 20.1 24.1 13.2 23.4 12.1 6.1 5.4 115 47.1 46.4 32.7 47.8 27.9 12.2 10.5 550 73.9 65.2 57.7 73.5 51.0 30.0 28.5 110 23.9 26.0 15.9 25.7 13.3 5.9 3.4 157 36.9 44.4 29.6 44.8 28.8 11.8 10.1 162 45.9 42.7 32.5 45.4 25.8 11.0 10.3 158 58.3 61.3 43.0 62.9 38.0 25.1 22.9 165 70.6 57.6 50.6 64.0 41.9 18.8 14.3 142 46.7 46.3 34.1 48.4 29.4 14.5 12.2 783 MONITORING THE SITUATION OF CHILDREN AND WOMEN 199 MULTIPLE INDICATOR CLUSTER SURVEY 2010200 Among the women interviewed aged between 15–49 Among the women interviewed aged between 15–49 years, only 16 percent rejected the two most common years, only 16 percent rejected the two most common misconceptions and knew that a healthy-looking person misconceptions and knew that a healthy-looking person can be infected. Every third woman knew that HIV can not can be infected. Every third woman knew that HIV can not be transmitted by mosquito bites, and 50 percent of women be transmitted by mosquito bites, and 50 percent of women knew that it cannot be transmitted by supernatural means. knew that it cannot be transmitted by supernatural means. Overall, less than half (44 percent) of all women know that Overall, less than half (44 percent) of all women know that a healthy-looking person can be infected. Comprehensive a healthy-looking person can be infected. Comprehensive knowledge of HIV prevention methods and transmission knowledge of HIV prevention methods and transmission is very low. Overall, only one in ten women was found to is very low. Overall, only one in ten women was found to have comprehensive knowledge. The percentage of women have comprehensive knowledge. The percentage of women with comprehensive knowledge increases with the woman’s with comprehensive knowledge increases with the woman’s education level (Figure HA.1R).education level (Figure HA.1R). Table HA.2R.M: Knowledge about HIV transmission, misconceptions about HIV/AIDS, and comprehensive knowledge about HIV transmission among young men, Roma Settlements, 2010 Percentage of young men age 15–24 years who know the main ways of preventing HIV transmission, percentage who know that a healthy looking person can have the AIDS virus, percentage who reject common misconceptions, and percentage who have comprehensive knowledge about HIV transmission Percentage who have heard of AIDS Percentage who know transmission can be prevented by: Having only one faithful uninfected sex partner Using a condom every time Area  Urban 89.1 67.4 67.4 Rural 78.6 62.3 57.2 Age  15–19 84.8 64.2 62.2 20–24 86.7 67.4 66.0 Marital status  Ever married/in union 83.6 65.2 61.9 Never married/in union 87.6 66.3 66.0 Men’s education  None (59.9) (24.7) (39.0) Primary 82.8 61.6 58.4 Secondary 100.0 87.7 85.1 Wealth index quintiles  Poorest 74.0 45.3 43.4 Second 83.0 59.2 60.8 Middle 91.0 77.2 71.9 Fourth 88.0 74.7 74.4 Richest 95.8 77.0 74.5 Total 85.7 65.8 64.1 1 MICS indicator 9.2; MDG indicator 6.3 ( ) Figures that are based on 25–49 unweighted cases MULTIPLE INDICATOR CLUSTER SURVEY 2010200 Figure HA.1R: Percentage of women who have comprehensive knowledge of HIV/AIDS transmission, Roma settlements, 2010 MONITORING THE SITUATION OF CHILDREN AND WOMEN 201 Percentage of men who know both ways Percentage who know that a healthy looking person can have the AIDS virus Percentage who know that HIV cannot be transmitted by: Percentage who reject the two most common misconceptions and know that a healthy looking person can have the AIDS virus Percentage with comprehensive knowledge1 Number of men age 15–24Mosquito bites Supernatural means Sharing food with someone with AIDS 59.1 60.4 35.7 64.7 31.7 14.7 12.5 399 50.8 44.7 25.3 57.1 22.9 9.6 8.2 189 54.1 55.0 36.1 64.4 25.3 12.5 10.4 295 58.9 55.7 28.6 60.1 32.4 13.7 11.9 293 55.4 52.6 29.5 60.9 27.7 11.8 10.6 274 57.4 57.7 34.9 63.5 29.8 14.1 11.6 315 (18.6) (39.3) (6.7) (34.2) (18.3) (.0) (.0) 38 51.3 51.5 27.6 58.0 21.3 8.2 6.3 400 79.8 68.5 50.2 79.9 50.3 27.2 25.5 146 34.7 39.0 20.5 44.0 15.5 5.8 3.4 130 48.7 50.5 27.4 57.9 22.8 6.7 5.6 126 64.8 53.3 32.2 64.1 25.1 13.7 11.4 121 68.7 69.9 39.9 68.4 39.7 20.1 18.0 113 71.1 69.0 46.0 82.9 46.5 21.9 20.2 98 56.5 55.3 32.4 62.3 28.8 13.1 11.1 588 The level of comprehensive knowledge among men The level of comprehensive knowledge among men aged between 15–29 does not differ from the one aged between 15–29 does not differ from the one recorded among women. In total, 13 percent of men recorded among women. In total, 13 percent of men have comprehensive knowledge.have comprehensive knowledge. About half (55 percent) of women knew that HIV About half (55 percent) of women knew that HIV can be transmitted from mother to child. The can be transmitted from mother to child. The percentage of women who knew all three ways of percentage of women who knew all three ways of mother-to-child transmission is 47 percent, while mother-to-child transmission is 47 percent, while 17 percent of women did not know of any specific 17 percent of women did not know of any specific way. As expected, the percentage of women with way. As expected, the percentage of women with knowledge of mother-to-child transmission of HIV knowledge of mother-to-child transmission of HIV increases with the woman’s education level, age and increases with the woman’s education level, age and living standard. living standard. MONITORING THE SITUATION OF CHILDREN AND WOMEN 201 MULTIPLE INDICATOR CLUSTER SURVEY 2010202 Table HA.3R: Knowledge of mother-to-child HIV transmission, Roma Settlements, 2010 Percentage of women age 15–49 years who correctly identify means of HIV transmission from mother to child   Percentage who know HIV can be transmitted from mother to child Percent who know HIV can be transmitted: Does not know any of the specific means Number of women During pregnancy During delivery By breastfeeding All three means1 Area  Urban 57.8 56.4 53.4 51.4 49.9 17.8 1461 Rural 48.0 46.8 45.6 42.3 41.0 15.3 657 Age group  15–24 50.9 49.1 47.8 46.3 44.1 21.5 783 25+ 57.0 56.0 52.8 49.9 48.9 14.4 1335 Age group  15–19 45.0 43.5 41.8 40.4 38.8 20.8 429 20–24 58.1 55.8 55.0 53.5 50.5 22.4 354 25–29 62.6 61.8 56.3 53.2 52.5 16.3 363 30–39 56.4 54.8 51.7 49.1 47.4 16.3 571 40–49 52.7 52.4 51.3 48.2 48.0 10.1 402 Marital status  Ever married/in union 55.2 54.0 51.6 49.4 48.0 15.4 1827 Never married/in union 51.8 50.1 47.2 43.5 41.9 27.3 291 Education  None 24.2 23.2 22.5 22.0 20.2 18.3 363 Primary 57.3 56.1 52.5 50.5 49.2 17.0 1437 Secondary 78.3 76.0 76.4 72.5 71.2 15.1 295 Wealth index quintiles  Poorest 35.1 34.0 34.1 32.9 31.7 15.4 396 Second 43.3 41.9 40.8 39.6 37.3 22.2 404 Middle 54.0 52.2 49.7 48.4 46.6 14.8 404 Fourth 70.5 69.0 62.3 59.6 58.1 11.5 468 Richest 66.6 65.9 64.3 59.2 58.9 21.6 447 Total 54.7 53.4 51.0 48.6 47.2 17.0 2118 1 MICS indicator 9.3 MULTIPLE INDICATOR CLUSTER SURVEY 2010202 MONITORING THE SITUATION OF CHILDREN AND WOMEN 203 Accepting Attitudes toward PeopleAccepting Attitudes toward People Living with HIV/AIDSLiving with HIV/AIDS Table HA.4: Accepting attitudes toward people living with HIV/AIDS, Serbia, 2010 Percentage of women age 15–49 years who have heard of AIDS who express an accepting attitude towards people living with HIV/AIDS   Percentage of women who: Number of women who have heard of AIDS Are willing to care for a family member with the AIDS virus in own home Would buy fresh vegetables from a shopkeeper or vendor who has the AIDS virus Believe that a female teacher with the AIDS virus and is not sick should be allowed to continue teaching Would not want to keep secret that a family member got infected with the AIDS virus Agree with at least one accepting attitude Express accepting attitudes on all four indicators1 Region  Belgrade 95.7 41.2 48.4 32.7 97.4 19.0 1134 Vojvodina 85.5 35.7 45.5 32.3 89.6 12.6 1358 Sumadija and Western Serbia 95.2 29.4 34.6 39.4 96.8 11.2 1495 Southern and Eastern Serbia 98.0 28.5 39.0 27.4 98.7 8.6 1341 Area  Urban 95.0 38.2 46.7 34.3 96.8 15.3 3137 Rural 91.4 26.2 33.9 31.4 93.9 8.7 2192 Age  15–24 93.2 36.4 45.1 27.3 95.0 11.5 1352 25+ 93.6 32.2 40.2 35.1 95.8 13.0 3977 Age  15–19 92.4 37.2 42.4 25.1 94.7 9.8 653 20–24 93.9 35.6 47.5 29.4 95.3 13.0 699 25–29 92.5 34.7 42.4 35.9 96.4 13.9 840 15–29 92.9 35.7 44.0 30.6 95.5 12.4 2192 30–39 94.3 34.6 42.1 34.7 96.2 13.6 1546 40–49 93.6 28.7 37.1 35.1 95.1 11.8 1591 Marital status  Ever married/ in union 93.0 28.9 37.3 33.8 95.1 11.0 3681 Never married/ in union 94.8 43.1 50.6 31.6 96.6 16.1 1648 Education  Primary 87.2 15.4 18.9 30.1 90.6 4.1 674 Secondary 93.4 29.3 37.3 31.2 95.4 9.5 3054 Higher 96.8 49.0 59.2 38.2 98.4 22.2 1587 Wealth index quintiles  Poorest 87.3 17.9 24.6 32.4 92.1 5.9 715 Second 93.1 26.4 33.2 31.3 94.4 8.1 1057 Middle 91.5 35.1 42.4 33.8 93.8 12.0 1075 Fourth 96.0 36.6 45.4 33.6 97.3 14.9 1213 Richest 96.8 43.0 53.1 34.1 98.5 18.3 1270 Total 93.5 33.3 41.4 33.1 95.6 12.6 5329 1 MICS indicator 9.4 MULTIPLE INDICATOR CLUSTER SURVEY 2010204 The indicators on attitudes toward people living with HIV The indicators on attitudes toward people living with HIV measure stigma and discrimination in the community. measure stigma and discrimination in the community. Stigma and discrimination are low if respondents report an Stigma and discrimination are low if respondents report an accepting attitude on the following four questions: 1) would accepting attitude on the following four questions: 1) would care for a family member sick with AIDS; 2) would buy fresh care for a family member sick with AIDS; 2) would buy fresh vegetables from a vendor who was HIV positive; 3) thinks vegetables from a vendor who was HIV positive; 3) thinks that a female teacher who is HIV positive should be allowed that a female teacher who is HIV positive should be allowed to teach in school; and 4) would to teach in school; and 4) would notnot want to keep the HIV want to keep the HIV status of a family member a secret. Table HA.4 presents the status of a family member a secret. Table HA.4 presents the attitudes of women towards people living with HIV/AIDS. attitudes of women towards people living with HIV/AIDS. Table HA.4M: Accepting attitudes toward people living with HIV/AIDS, Serbia, 2010 Percentage of men age 15–29 years who have heard of AIDS who express an accepting attitude towards people living with HIV/AIDS Percentage of men who: Number of men who have heard of AIDS Are willing to care for a family member with the AIDS virus in own home Would buy fresh vegetables from a shopkeeper or vendor who has the AIDS virus Believe that a female teacher with the AIDS virus and is not sick should be allowed to continue teaching Would not want to keep secret that a family member got infected with the AIDS virus Agree with at least one accepting attitude Express accepting attitudes on all four indicators Region Belgrade 94.7 46.7 45.8 32.2 98.0 17.1 319 Vojvodina 87.8 38.8 48.0 26.3 90.5 11.6 408 Sumadija and Western Serbia 96.6 37.8 37.0 34.9 98.5 8.0 441 Southern and Eastern Serbia 96.9 36.4 47.6 17.0 97.9 6.6 407 Area  Urban 95.8 45.5 49.7 27.8 97.7 13.1 905 Rural 91.6 31.4 37.2 27.2 94.1 6.8 669 Age 15–24 93.7 37.7 45.5 24.1 96.4 9.3 970 25+ 94.5 42.4 42.6 32.9 95.9 12.3 605 Age 15–19 93.4 37.2 46.4 23.5 96.5 8.7 463 20–24 94.1 38.2 44.7 24.7 96.2 9.7 507 25–29 94.5 42.4 42.6 32.9 95.9 12.3 605 Marital status Ever married/ in union 93.1 36.7 34.8 32.4 94.7 9.1 308 Never married/ in union 94.3 40.2 46.7 26.3 96.6 10.7 1267 Education Primary 88.1 20.6 23.9 35.8 90.4 5.3 119 Secondary 93.7 34.5 39.8 25.1 95.9 8.4 1025 Higher 96.6 56.8 60.9 30.8 98.5 16.7 429 Wealth index quintiles Poorest 89.4 27.7 29.0 33.6 92.4 6.8 233 Second 92.8 28.4 34.9 24.1 94.4 7.3 324 Middle 93.3 44.2 45.0 26.8 97.0 9.0 317 Fourth 94.7 39.5 51.2 24.7 96.6 9.5 334 Richest 98.1 52.7 55.8 29.9 99.1 17.5 367 Total 94.0 39.5 44.4 27.5 96.2 10.4 1575 MONITORING THE SITUATION OF CHILDREN AND WOMEN 205 In total, 96 percent of women who have heard of AIDS In total, 96 percent of women who have heard of AIDS have an accepting attitude on at least one of these four have an accepting attitude on at least one of these four statements. The most common discriminative attitude statements. The most common discriminative attitude is that women would want to keep the HIV status of is that women would want to keep the HIV status of a family member a secret and they will not buy fresh a family member a secret and they will not buy fresh vegetables from a shopkeeper who has AIDS (in 67 vegetables from a shopkeeper who has AIDS (in 67 percent of cases). More educated women and those living percent of cases). More educated women and those living in the household within the richest quintile have more in the household within the richest quintile have more accepting attitudes, than the ones with lower education accepting attitudes, than the ones with lower education and lower socio-economic status.and lower socio-economic status. Similar patterns are observed for men aged 15–29 years. Similar patterns are observed for men aged 15–29 years. The most common discriminative attitude is that 7 out of The most common discriminative attitude is that 7 out of 10 men interviewed would want to keep the HIV status of 10 men interviewed would want to keep the HIV status of a family member a secret. More educated young men and a family member a secret. More educated young men and those living in households within the richest quintile have those living in households within the richest quintile have more accepting attitudes than those with lower education more accepting attitudes than those with lower education and a lower socio/economic status.and a lower socio/economic status. MULTIPLE INDICATOR CLUSTER SURVEY 2010206 Accepting Attitudes toward People LivingAccepting Attitudes toward People Living with HIV/AIDS in Roma Settlementswith HIV/AIDS in Roma Settlements In total, 91 percent of women who have heard of AIDS In total, 91 percent of women who have heard of AIDS have an accepting attitude on at least one of the four have an accepting attitude on at least one of the four questions. The two most common discriminative attitudes questions. The two most common discriminative attitudes are that women would are that women would notnot buy fresh vegetables from a buy fresh vegetables from a shopkeeper with AIDS and that women believe that a shopkeeper with AIDS and that women believe that a female teacher with AIDS (but not sick) should not be female teacher with AIDS (but not sick) should not be allowed to keep teaching (about 85 percent). allowed to keep teaching (about 85 percent). Table HA.4R: Accepting attitudes toward people living with HIV/AIDS, Roma Settlements, 2010 Percentage of women age 15–49 years who have heard of AIDS who express an accepting attitude towards people living with HIV/AIDS Percentage of women who: Number of women who have heard of AIDS Are willing to care for a family member with the AIDS virus in own home Would buy fresh vegetables from a shopkeeper or vendor who has the AIDS virus Believe that a female teacher with the AIDS virus and is not sick should be allowed to continue teaching Would not want to keep secret that a family member got infected with the AIDS virus Agree with at least one accepting attitude Express accepting attitudes on all four indicators1 Area  Urban 87.6 15.5 16.9 46.2 92.7 4.0 1105 Rural 78.3 10.4 10.7 53.2 86.9 2.6 415 Age  15–24 82.9 15.3 15.4 51.0 88.6 5.4 567 25+ 86.3 13.4 15.0 46.4 92.6 2.5 954 Age  15–19 85.0 21.2 17.3 46.8 91.4 7.5 282 20–24 80.8 9.4 13.6 55.2 85.9 3.4 285 25–29 89.9 17.7 16.3 45.5 93.7 1.7 286 15–29 85.2 16.1 15.7 49.1 90.3 4.2 853 30–39 82.2 9.7 13.6 45.5 91.2 3.5 415 40–49 88.9 14.6 16.1 48.9 93.6 1.8 253 Marital status  Ever married/ in union 84.9 12.0 13.6 49.4 91.0 2.9 1291 Never married/ in union 85.8 26.2 24.1 40.9 91.7 7.7 230 Education  None 84.1 6.2 7.9 47.1 89.3 1.1 154 Primary 83.8 11.7 13.4 50.0 89.5 3.0 1067 Secondary 91.2 25.6 23.6 43.3 97.7 7.3 276 Wealth index quintiles  Poorest 71.4 10.5 11.7 45.4 83.9 5.5 200 Second 85.6 9.6 9.0 51.9 89.6 1.7 265 Middle 85.7 13.9 17.0 54.1 92.2 5.1 278 Fourth 90.4 11.5 9.2 53.4 92.9 1.9 384 Richest 85.8 21.8 25.6 37.5 93.3 4.6 394 Total 85.0 14.1 15.2 48.1 91.1 3.6 1520 1 MICS indicator 9.4 MULTIPLE INDICATOR CLUSTER SURVEY 2010206 MONITORING THE SITUATION OF CHILDREN AND WOMEN 207 Men aged between 15–29 years seem to share the same Men aged between 15–29 years seem to share the same attitudes towards people living with HIV/AIDS as women.attitudes towards people living with HIV/AIDS as women. Table HA.4R.M: Accepting attitudes toward people living with HIV/AIDS, Roma Settlements, 2010 Percentage of men age 15–29 years who have heard of AIDS who express an accepting attitude towards people living with HIV/AIDS Percentage of men who: Number of men who have heard of AIDS Are willing to care for a family member with the AIDS virus in own home Would buy fresh vegetables from a shopkeeper or vendor who has the AIDS virus Believe that a female teacher with the AIDS virus and is not sick should be allowed to continue teaching Would not want to keep secret that a family member got infected with the AIDS virus Agree with at least one accepting attitude Express accepting attitudes on all four indicators Area  Urban 79.8 11.7 16.1 46.9 91.0 5.0 538 Rural 82.6 11.0 12.5 59.4 87.7 5.0 225 Age  15–24 78.5 11.0 15.8 47.1 88.7 4.3 504 25+ 84.7 12.5 13.5 57.6 92.6 6.3 258 Age  15–19 72.0 8.4 13.3 44.7 85.1 2.1 250 20–24 85.0 13.5 18.2 49.4 92.3 6.5 254 25–29 84.7 12.5 13.5 57.6 92.6 6.3 258 Marital status  Ever married/ in union 87.1 9.6 10.3 54.0 91.9 4.0 460 Never married/ in union 70.7 14.3 22.2 45.4 87.3 6.6 302 Education  None 83.7 1.0 3.9 60.1 95.2 .0 43 Primary 81.9 9.5 8.9 52.9 88.2 3.5 509 Secondary 75.8 16.5 30.6 43.5 93.1 9.4 202 Wealth index quintiles  Poorest 76.2 1.5 4.4 55.5 86.9 .6 145 Second 87.1 11.1 11.7 55.9 91.7 3.3 136 Middle 79.0 17.1 19.7 54.4 88.5 11.1 152 Fourth 88.8 11.6 11.4 55.5 92.9 4.3 170 Richest 71.7 15.5 27.0 32.7 89.9 5.6 159 Total 80.6 11.5 15.0 50.6 90.0 5.0 763 MONITORING THE SITUATION OF CHILDREN AND WOMEN 207 MULTIPLE INDICATOR CLUSTER SURVEY 2010208 Knowledge of a Place for HIV Testing, Knowledge of a Place for HIV Testing, Counselling and Testing duringCounselling and Testing during Antenatal CareAntenatal Care Another important indicator is the knowledge of where Another important indicator is the knowledge of where to be tested for HIV and use of such services. In order to be tested for HIV and use of such services. In order to protect themselves and to prevent them infecting to protect themselves and to prevent them infecting others, it is important for individuals to know their others, it is important for individuals to know their HIV status. Knowledge of one’s status is also a critical HIV status. Knowledge of one’s status is also a critical factor in the decision to seek treatment. Questions factor in the decision to seek treatment. Questions related to knowledge among women of a facility for related to knowledge among women of a facility for HIV testing and whether they have ever been tested is HIV testing and whether they have ever been tested is presented in Table HA.5. In total, 74 percent of women presented in Table HA.5. In total, 74 percent of women knew where to be tested, while only 10 percent have knew where to be tested, while only 10 percent have ever been tested. Women living in urban areas, more ever been tested. Women living in urban areas, more educated women and those living in households within educated women and those living in households within the richest quintile have more knowledge and have the richest quintile have more knowledge and have been tested in a larger proportion.been tested in a larger proportion. Table HA.5: Knowledge of a place for HIV testing, Serbia, 2010 Percentage of women age 15–49 years who know where to get an HIV test, percentage of women who have ever been tested, percentage of women who have been tested in the last 12 months, and percentage of women who have been tested and have been told the result Percentage of women who: Number of women Know a place to get tested1 Have ever been tested Have been tested in the last 12 months Have been tested and have been told result2 Region Belgrade 85.0 13.1 2.7 1.9 1142 Vojvodina 70.0 10.4 2.6 2.1 1376 Sumadija and Western Serbia 70.5 7.1 1.1 .7 1517 Southern and Eastern Serbia 73.3 10.1 2.3 1.2 1351 Area  Urban 80.8 12.2 2.6 2.0 3155 Rural 64.6 6.8 1.5 .6 2230 Age  15–24 69.6 4.9 2.3 1.7 1364 25–29 79.9 14.2 3.1 1.5 846 15–29 73.6 8.5 2.6 1.6 2210 30–39 76.7 15.3 2.6 1.6 1566 40–49 72.3 6.8 1.0 .9 1609 Marital status  Ever married/ in union 71.9 11.7 2.0 1.0 3730 Never married/ in union 79.0 6.1 2.4 2.3 1655 Education  Primary 38.8 3.1 .8 .1 704 Secondary 74.2 8.8 1.5 .9 3067 Higher 90.9 15.3 3.9 2.9 1587 Wealth index quintiles  Poorest 46.0 4.4 1.5 .9 750 Second 68.5 5.8 1.4 1.0 1066 Middle 76.5 8.9 1.9 1.1 1080 Fourth 79.8 12.1 1.4 .8 1217 Richest 88.0 15.6 4.0 2.9 1273 Total 74.1 10.0 2.1 1.4 5385 1 MICS indicator 9.5 2 MICS indicator 9.6 MONITORING THE SITUATION OF CHILDREN AND WOMEN 209 Similar patterns are observed for men 15–29 years old. Similar patterns are observed for men 15–29 years old. The results are shown in the Table HA.5M. The results are shown in the Table HA.5M. Table HA.5M: Knowledge of a place for HIV testing, Serbia, 2010 Percentage of men age 15–29 years who know where to get an HIV test, percentage of men who have ever been tested, percentage of men who have been tested in the last 12 months, and percentage of men who have been tested and have been told the result Percentage of men who: Number of menKnow a place to get tested Have ever been tested Have been tested in the last 12 months Have been tested and have been told result Region Belgrade 81.7 19.2 5.5 5.5 319 Vojvodina 62.1 8.9 4.0 3.0 408 Sumadija and Western Serbia 76.4 5.4 3.7 2.8 448 Southern and Eastern Serbia 76.9 8.0 1.2 1.2 408 Area  Urban 79.5 12.5 4.3 3.4 908 Rural 66.3 6.1 2.4 2.4 675 Age  15–24 69.1 6.2 2.6 2.2 977 25–29 81.7 15.5 4.9 4.3 606 Marital status  Ever married/in union 70.9 11.0 1.2 1.2 309 Never married/in union 74.6 9.5 4.0 3.4 1274 Education  Primary 49.3 8.9 1.1 1.1 120 Secondary 70.2 7.8 3.3 2.7 1032 Higher 89.8 14.8 4.7 4.2 429 Wealth index quintiles  Poorest 58.8 6.6 2.3 2.3 235 Second 68.8 6.2 1.3 .7 326 Middle 71.6 9.1 5.0 5.0 321 Fourth 77.7 13.0 4.3 2.6 334 Richest 86.6 12.5 4.1 4.1 367 Total 73.9 9.8 3.5 3.0 1583 MULTIPLE INDICATOR CLUSTER SURVEY 2010210 Tables HA.6 and HA.6M present the same results for Tables HA.6 and HA.6M present the same results for sexually active young women and men. The proportion sexually active young women and men. The proportion of young women and men who have been tested and have of young women and men who have been tested and have been told the result provides a measure of the effectiveness been told the result provides a measure of the effectiveness of interventions that promote HIV counselling and testing of interventions that promote HIV counselling and testing among young people. This is important to know, because among young people. This is important to know, because young people may feel that there are barriers to accessing young people may feel that there are barriers to accessing services related to sensitive issues, such as sexual health. services related to sensitive issues, such as sexual health. Table HA.6: Knowledge of a place for HIV testing among sexually active young women, Serbia, 2010 Percentage of women age 15–24 years who have had sex in the last 12 months, and among women who have had sex in the last 12 months, the percentage who know where to get an HIV test, percentage of women who have ever been tested, percentage of women who have been tested in the last 12 months, and percentage of women who have been tested and have been told the result Percentage who have had sex in the last 12 months Number of women age 15–24 years Percentage of women who: Number of women age 15–24 years who have had sex in the last 12 months Know a place to get tested Have ever been tested Have been tested in the last 12 months Have been tested and have been told result1 Region Belgrade 70.9 321 82.7 12.1 4.4 4.3 228 Vojvodina 60.5 317 68.1 8.1 5.3 3.2 192 Sumadija and Western Serbia 50.2 392 69.7 6.2 2.5 1.2 197 Southern and Eastern Serbia 55.5 333 65.9 3.9 1.7 1.1 185 Area  Urban 61.4 814 80.1 9.7 4.7 3.9 500 Rural 54.9 549 58.9 4.7 1.6 .3 302 Age  15–19 26.4 659 62.8 4.1 2.9 2.7 174 20–24 89.1 705 74.7 8.9 3.7 2.5 628 Marital status  Ever married/in union 99.3 255 52.7 11.1 3.6 .4 253 Never married/in union 49.4 1109 81.1 6.3 3.5 3.5 548 Education  Primary 67.1 112 40.2 6.0 2.7 .9 75 Secondary 46.0 789 62.7 8.4 2.4 .9 363 Higher 78.3 457 89.6 7.7 4.9 4.6 358 Wealth index quintiles  Poorest 58.4 199 35.3 6.7 2.9 .8 116 Second 64.0 276 61.8 7.0 2.7 1.6 177 Middle 51.1 267 85.1 5.4 3.3 1.3 136 Fourth 57.2 287 81.1 4.5 .0 .0 164 Richest 62.2 334 85.8 13.4 7.6 7.0 208 Total 58.8 1364 72.1 7.8 3.5 2.5 802 1 MICS indicator 9.7 MONITORING THE SITUATION OF CHILDREN AND WOMEN 211 Table HA.6M: Knowledge of a place for HIV testing among sexually active young men, Serbia, 2010 Percentage of men age 15–24 years who have had sex in the last 12 months, and among men who have had sex in the last 12 months, the percentage who know where to get an HIV test, percentage of men who have ever been tested, percentage of men who have been tested in the last 12 months, and percentage of men who have been tested and have been told the result Percentage who have had sex in the last 12 months Number of men age 15–24 years Percentage of men who: Number of men age 15–24 years who have had sex in the last 12 months Know a place to get tested Have ever been tested Have been tested in the last 12 months Have been tested and have been told result1 Region  Belgrade 80.6 192 78.0 16.8 8.2 8.2 155 Vojvodina 67.9 263 68.0 8.0 2.2 2.2 179 Sumadija and Western Serbia 61.2 280 75.8 4.6 3.9 1.8 171 Southern and Eastern Serbia 62.6 242 77.4 7.6 1.3 1.3 152 Area  Urban 67.0 556 79.9 12.0 5.2 4.2 372 Rural 67.3 422 67.5 5.3 2.1 2.1 284 Age  15–19 38.5 465 70.5 8.9 5.4 3.4 179 20–24 93.2 512 76.1 9.2 3.3 3.3 477 Marital status  Ever married/in union 99.7 77 64.7 9.0 1.0 1.0 77 Never married/in union 64.4 900 75.9 9.1 4.2 3.6 580 Education  Primary 69.4 72 47.8 9.0 .8 .8 50 Secondary 59.2 680 71.3 8.0 3.8 2.9 403 Higher 90.2 224 87.7 11.2 4.8 4.8 202 Wealth index quintiles  Poorest 57.4 145 57.8 6.8 .6 .6 83 Second 74.9 186 69.5 3.5 1.4 1.4 140 Middle 72.4 214 67.6 4.4 3.3 3.3 155 Fourth 58.0 217 84.7 19.0 7.0 4.1 126 Richest 71.1 215 87.0 12.1 5.9 5.9 153 Total 67.2 977 74.6 9.1 3.9 3.3 656 1 MICS indicator 9.7 Among women who had given birth within the two Among women who had given birth within the two years preceding the survey, the percentages who years preceding the survey, the percentages who received counselling and HIV testing during antenatal received counselling and HIV testing during antenatal care are presented in Table HA.7. One in five women (19 care are presented in Table HA.7. One in five women (19 percent) had received HIV counselling during antenatal percent) had received HIV counselling during antenatal care. The proportion of women that were offered a HIV care. The proportion of women that were offered a HIV test and were tested increases with education level.test and were tested increases with education level. MULTIPLE INDICATOR CLUSTER SURVEY 2010212 Table HA.7: HIV counselling and testing during antenatal care, Serbia, 2010 Among women age 15–49 who gave birth in the last 2 years, percentage of women who received antenatal care from a health professional during the last pregnancy, percentage who received HIV counselling, percentage who were offered and accepted an HIV test and received the results Percentage of women who: Number of women who gave birth in the 2 years preceding the survey Received antenatal care from a health care professional for last pregnancy Received HIV counselling during antenatal care1 Were offered an HIV test and were tested for HIV during antenatal care Were offered an HIV test and were tested for HIV during antenatal care, and received the results2 Received HIV counselling, were offered an HIV test, accepted and received the results Region Belgrade 99.6 32.9 13.9 13.6 13.0 91 Vojvodina 99.8 15.5 9.7 9.7 6.3 163 Sumadija and Western Serbia 97.1 15.1 13.6 12.9 5.2 144 Southern and Eastern Serbia 99.6 17.8 19.6 19.6 9.0 146 Area  Urban 99.7 21.1 14.6 14.4 8.6 281 Rural 98.2 16.6 13.5 13.3 7.1 262 Young women   15–24 97.9 11.4 8.3 8.3 3.2 124 Age  15–19 (85.6) (4.4) (.0) (.0) (.0) 18 20–24 100.0 12.6 9.8 9.8 3.7 105 25–29 99.2 19.3 15.5 15.1 8.6 194 30–34 99.3 22.2 15.3 15.3 9.7 148 35–49 99.7 23.7 17.5 17.0 10.1 78 Marital status  Ever married/ in union 99.3 18.9 14.1 13.9 7.9 539 Never married/ in union (*) (*) (*) (*) (*) 4 Education  Primary 97.8 9.9 5.8 5.8 2.0 79 Secondary 99.2 18.1 14.2 13.9 7.3 307 Higher 100.0 26.4 19.0 18.8 12.6 148 Wealth index quintiles  Poorest 95.4 7.2 7.2 6.8 3.4 112 Second 100.0 26.9 15.1 14.8 8.0 97 Middle 100.0 11.9 16.1 16.1 6.6 87 Fourth 100.0 18.9 15.1 15.1 7.5 106 Richest 99.8 27.1 16.8 16.5 12.4 141 Total 99.0 18.9 14.1 13.9 7.9 543 1 MICS indicator 9.8 2 MICS indicator 9.9 ( ) Figures that are based on 25–49 unweighted cases (*) Figures that are based on less than 25 unweighted cases MONITORING THE SITUATION OF CHILDREN AND WOMEN 213 Knowledge of a Place for HIV Testing,Knowledge of a Place for HIV Testing, Counselling and Testing during AntenatalCounselling and Testing during Antenatal Care in Roma SettlementsCare in Roma Settlements In total, 29 percent of women from Roma settlements In total, 29 percent of women from Roma settlements knew where to be tested, while only 4 percent have ever knew where to be tested, while only 4 percent have ever been tested. Women living in urban areas and more been tested. Women living in urban areas and more educated women have more knowledge and have been educated women have more knowledge and have been tested in a larger proportion.tested in a larger proportion. Table HA.5R: Knowledge of a place for HIV testing, Roma Settlements, 2010 Percentage of women age 15–49 years who know where to get an HIV test, percentage of women who have ever been tested, percentage of women who have been tested in the last 12 months, and percentage of women who have been tested and have been told the result Percentage of women who: Number of womenKnow a place to get tested1 Have ever been tested Have been tested in the last 12 months Have been tested and have been told result2 Area  Urban 32.6 4.6 .7 .3 1461 Rural 22.1 1.1 .3 .2 657 Age  15–24 27.3 2.2 .8 .5 783 25–29 33.4 8.0 1.1 .1 363 15–29 29.2 4.1 .9 .4 1145 30–39 33.3 3.0 .2 .1 571 40–49 24.3 2.8 .1 .1 402 Marital status  Ever married/in union 27.9 3.9 .6 .2 1827 Never married/in union 38.8 1.6 .5 .5 291 Education  None 3.8 .5 .0 .0 363 Primary 27.6 3.4 .6 .3 1437 Secondary 64.3 5.7 .9 .2 295 Wealth index quintiles  Poorest 12.2 1.0 .8 .6 396 Second 21.4 4.7 .0 .0 404 Middle 23.6 2.4 .5 .1 404 Fourth 30.1 2.2 .7 .3 468 Richest 56.3 7.2 .8 .3 447 Total 29.4 3.5 .6 .3 2118 1 MICS indicator 9.5 2 MICS indicator 9.6 MONITORING THE SITUATION OF CHILDREN AND WOMEN 213 MULTIPLE INDICATOR CLUSTER SURVEY 2010214 Similar patterns are observed for men 15–29 years Similar patterns are observed for men 15–29 years old. Men living in urban areas and more educated men old. Men living in urban areas and more educated men have more knowledge and have been tested in a larger have more knowledge and have been tested in a larger proportion.proportion. Table HA.5R.M: Knowledge of a place for HIV testing, Roma Settlements, 2010 Percentage of men age 15–29 years who know where to get an HIV test, percentage of men who have ever been tested, percentage of men who have been tested in the last 12 months, and percentage of men who have been tested and have been told the result Percentage of men who: Number of menKnow a place to get tested Have ever been tested Have been tested in the last 12 months Have been tested and have been told result Area  Urban 40.7 4.8 2.8 2.8 598 Rural 24.3 1.4 .3 .1 279 Age 15–24 32.2 3.7 2.9 2.8 588 25–29 42.1 3.6 .1 .1 289 Marital status  Ever married/in union 35.8 4.1 1.6 1.5 535 Never married/in union 35.0 3.1 2.6 2.6 342 Education  None 14.6 6.1 2.2 2.2 66 Primary 28.5 2.1 .7 .6 599 Secondary 60.6 6.4 4.3 4.3 202 Wealth index quintiles  Poorest 19.9 3.3 .9 .8 191 Second 29.2 5.1 2.2 2.0 166 Middle 33.5 6.3 5.3 5.3 172 Fourth 45.1 1.8 .0 .0 185 Richest 51.4 2.1 1.8 1.8 163 Total 35.5 3.7 2.0 1.9 877 The results for sexually active young women and men are The results for sexually active young women and men are presented in tables HA.6R and HA.6R.M. The proportion presented in tables HA.6R and HA.6R.M. The proportion of young women and men who have been tested and have of young women and men who have been tested and have been told the result provides a measure of the effectiveness been told the result provides a measure of the effectiveness of interventions that promote HIV counselling and testing of interventions that promote HIV counselling and testing among young people. This is important to know, because among young people. This is important to know, because young people may feel that there are barriers to accessing young people may feel that there are barriers to accessing services related to sensitive issues, such as sexual health.services related to sensitive issues, such as sexual health. MULTIPLE INDICATOR CLUSTER SURVEY 2010214 MONITORING THE SITUATION OF CHILDREN AND WOMEN 215 Table HA.6R: Knowledge of a place for HIV testing among sexually active young women, Roma Settlements, 2010 Percentage of women age 15–24 years who have had sex in the last 12 months, and among women who have had sex in the last 12 months, the percentage who know where to get an HIV test, percentage of women who have ever been tested, percentage of women who have been tested in the last 12 months, and percentage of women who have been tested and have been told the result Percentage who have had sex in the last 12 months Number of women age 15–24 years Percentage of women who: Number of women age 15–24 years who have had sex in the last 12 months Know a place to get tested Have ever been tested Have been tested in the last 12 months Have been tested and have been told result1 Area  Urban 68.2 526 26.9 3.5 1.3 .6 359 Rural 76.1 256 23.9 2.5 .9 .8 195 Age  15–19 53.3 429 24.0 2.5 .7 .0 229 20–24 92.1 354 27.1 3.6 1.5 1.2 326 Marital status  Ever married/in union 97.3 527 23.4 3.1 1.1 .6 512 Never married/in union 16.4 256 (55.0) (3.2) (2.4) (2.4) 42 Education  None 79.3 115 2.4 .0 .0 .0 91 Primary 73.1 550 23.1 3.5 1.2 1.0 402 Secondary 48.6 110 75.4 6.3 3.1 .0 53 Wealth index quintiles  Poorest 73.7 157 12.6 2.9 2.9 2.0 116 Second 75.7 162 26.1 5.4 .0 .0 123 Middle 73.0 158 15.0 2.8 1.3 .0 115 Fourth 68.3 165 27.6 2.4 1.4 1.4 113 Richest 62.5 142 54.5 1.8 .3 .0 89 Total 70.8 783 25.8 3.1 1.2 .7 554 1 MICS indicator 9.7 ( ) Figures that are based on 25–49 unweighted cases MONITORING THE SITUATION OF CHILDREN AND WOMEN 215 MULTIPLE INDICATOR CLUSTER SURVEY 2010216 Table HA.6R.M: Knowledge of a place for HIV testing among sexually active young men, Roma Settlements, 2010 Percentage of men age 15–24 years who have had sex in the last 12 months, and among men who have had sex in the last 12 months, the percentage who know where to get an HIV test, percentage of men who have ever been tested, percentage of men who have been tested in the last 12 months, and percentage of men who have been tested and have been told the result Percentage who have had sex in the last 12 months Number of men age 15–24 years Percentage of men who: Number of men age 15–24 years who have had sex in the last 12 months Know a place to get tested Have ever been tested Have been tested in the last 12 months Have been tested and have been told result1 Area  Urban 71.4 399 41.0 7.3 5.8 5.8 285 Rural 62.3 189 22.4 .9 .5 .0 118 Age  15–19 44.7 295 31.4 8.0 8.0 8.0 132 20–24 92.5 293 37.6 4.2 2.4 2.2 271 Marital status  Ever married/in union 99.3 274 29.8 4.6 3.0 2.8 272 Never married/in union 41.7 315 47.6 7.2 6.9 6.9 131 Education  None (66.3) 38 (24.0) (11.7) (5.9) (5.9) 25 Primary 71.0 400 27.2 2.4 1.4 1.2 284 Secondary 61.5 146 62.1 10.3 9.8 9.8 89 Wealth index quintiles  Poorest 54.4 130 21.6 5.6 2.5 2.1 71 Second 68.6 126 29.9 6.8 4.2 3.8 86 Middle 75.6 121 31.0 9.6 9.6 9.6 92 Fourth 71.3 113 35.4 .5 .0 .0 81 Richest 75.2 98 61.5 4.0 4.0 4.0 74 Total 68.5 588 35.6 5.4 4.2 4.1 403 1 MICS indicator 9.7 ( ) Figures that are based on 25–49 unweighted cases Among women who had given birth within the two Among women who had given birth within the two years preceding the survey, the percentage who received years preceding the survey, the percentage who received counselling and HIV testing during antenatal care is counselling and HIV testing during antenatal care is presented in Table HA.7R. In total, only 6 percent of all presented in Table HA.7R. In total, only 6 percent of all interviewed women had received HIV counselling during interviewed women had received HIV counselling during antenatal care. antenatal care. MULTIPLE INDICATOR CLUSTER SURVEY 2010216 MONITORING THE SITUATION OF CHILDREN AND WOMEN 217 Table HA.7R: HIV counselling and testing during antenatal care, Roma Settlements, 2010 Among women age 15–49 who gave birth in the last 2 years, percentage of women who received antenatal care from a health professional during the last pregnancy, percentage who received HIV counselling, percentage who were offered and accepted an HIV test and received the results Percentage of women who: Number of women who gave birth in the 2 years preceding the survey Received antenatal care from a health care professional for last pregnancy Received HIV counselling during antenatal care1 Were offered an HIV test and were tested for HIV during antenatal care Were offered an HIV test and were tested for HIV during antenatal care, and received the results2 Received HIV counselling, were offered an HIV test, accepted and received the results Area  Urban 94.5 6.3 2.4 2.4 .5 294 Rural 94.7 4.4 1.3 1.2 1.1 146 Young women   15–24 95.2 3.9 1.4 1.4 .5 290 Age  15–19 95.3 2.5 1.5 1.5 .0 114 20–24 95.1 4.7 1.4 1.3 .9 176 25–29 96.1 5.1 3.6 3.6 1.8 87 30–34 87.8 5.6 .0 .0 .0 39 35–49 (92.4) (29.5) (6.9) (6.9) (.0) 24 Marital status  Ever married/in union 94.5 5.7 2.1 2.0 .7 435 Never married/in union (*) (*) (*) (*) (*) 5 Education  None 86.2 1.8 .0 .0 .0 89 Primary 96.3 3.6 2.3 2.3 1.1 291 Secondary 98.5 21.9 3.6 3.6 .0 59 Wealth index quintiles  Poorest 89.2 .0 .0 .0 .0 106 Second 96.7 5.1 2.0 2.0 .0 99 Middle 89.0 4.3 2.1 2.1 .0 80 Fourth 99.4 13.3 5.1 5.1 2.7 81 Richest 100.0 7.6 1.6 1.4 1.2 75 Total 94.5 5.7 2.0 2.0 .7 440 1 MICS indicator 9.8 2 MICS indicator 9.9 ( ) Figures that are based on 25–49 unweighted cases (*) Figures that are based on less than 25 unweighted cases MONITORING THE SITUATION OF CHILDREN AND WOMEN 217 MULTIPLE INDICATOR CLUSTER SURVEY 2010218 Sexual Behaviour Related to HIV Sexual Behaviour Related to HIV TransmissionTransmission Promoting safer sexual behaviour is critical for reducing Promoting safer sexual behaviour is critical for reducing HIV prevalence. The use of condoms during sex, especially HIV prevalence. The use of condoms during sex, especially with non-regular partners, is especially important for with non-regular partners, is especially important for reducing the spread of HIV. In most countries over half reducing the spread of HIV. In most countries over half of new HIV infections are among young people aged of new HIV infections are among young people aged between 15–24 years, thus a change in behaviour among between 15–24 years, thus a change in behaviour among this age group will be especially important to reduce new this age group will be especially important to reduce new infections. A module of questions was administered to infections. A module of questions was administered to women and men between 15–24 years of age to assess their women and men between 15–24 years of age to assess their risk of HIV infection. Risk factors for HIV include sex at an risk of HIV infection. Risk factors for HIV include sex at an early age, sex with an older person, sex with a non-marital early age, sex with an older person, sex with a non-marital non-cohabitating partner, and failure to use a condom.non-cohabitating partner, and failure to use a condom. Table HA.8: Sexual behaviour that increases the risk of HIV infection, Serbia, 2010 Percentage of never-married young women age 15–24 years who have never had sex, percentage of young women age 15–24 years who have had sex before age 15, and percentage of young women age 15–24 years who had sex with a man 10 or more years older during the last 12 months Percentage of never-married women age 15–24 years who have never had sex1 Number of never- married women age 15–24 years Percentage of women age 15–24 years who had sex before age 152 Number of women age 15–24 years Percentage of women age 15–24 years who had sex in the last 12 months with a man 10 or more years older3 Number of women age 15–24 years who had sex in the 12 months preceding the survey Region  Belgrade 29.2 279 2.9 321 2.4 228 Vojvodina 46.2 248 2.5 317 6.2 192 Sumadija and Western Serbia 59.9 325 .7 392 6.6 197 Southern and Eastern Serbia 53.2 256 1.1 333 2.3 185 Area  Urban 42.1 703 2.1 814 2.5 500 Rural 56.9 406 1.3 549 7.3 302 Age  15–19 76.6 622 1.4 659 4.9 174 20–24 10.3 486 2.1 705 4.2 628 Marital status  Ever married/in union na na 6.0 255 11.3 253 Never married/in union 47.5 1109 .8 1109 1.1 548 Education  Primary (72.5) 48 10.5 112 13.2 75 Secondary 65.2 634 .8 789 5.6 363 Higher 18.5 426 .7 457 1.2 358 Wealth index quintiles  Poorest 69.0 117 6.8 199 7.4 116 Second 43.6 211 1.9 276 4.3 177 Middle 56.6 223 .7 267 4.5 136 Fourth 44.4 261 .9 287 3.3 164 Richest 37.8 298 .2 334 3.3 208 Total 47.5 1109 1.7 1364 4.3 802 1 MICS indicator 9.10 2 MICS indicator 9.11 3 MICS indicator 9.12 ( ) Figures that are based on 25–49 unweighted cases MONITORING THE SITUATION OF CHILDREN AND WOMEN 219 Table HA.8M: Sexual behaviour that increases the risk of HIV infection, Serbia, 2010 Percentage of never-married young men age 15–24 years who have never had sex, percentage of young men age 15–24 years who have had sex before age 15, and percentage of young men age 15–24 years who had sex with a woman 10 or more years older during the last 12 months   Percentage of never-married men age 15–24 years who have never had sex1 Number of never- married men age 15–24 years Percentage of men age 15–24 years who had sex before age 152 Number of men age 15–24 years Percentage of men age 15–24 years who had sex in the last 12 months with a woman 10 or more years older3 Number of men age 15–24 years who had sex in the 12 months preceding the survey Region Belgrade 19.1 179 7.2 192 1.2 155 Vojvodina 29.7 246 6.2 263 .2 179 Sumadija and Western Serbia 40.1 259 2.2 280 .0 171 Southern and Eastern Serbia 37.5 217 2.1 242 .0 152 Area  Urban 32.1 526 2.6 556 .6 372 Rural 32.9 374 6.3 422 .0 284 Age  15–19 58.7 460 3.8 465 .2 179 20–24 5.0 440 4.6 512 .4 477 Marital status Ever married/in union na na 15.5 77 .4 77 Never married/in union 32.4 900 3.3 900 .3 580 Education  Primary (35.5) 50 10.7 72 .0 50 Secondary 41.2 634 4.2 680 .1 403 Higher 5.9 215 1.9 224 .9 202 Wealth index quintiles  Poorest 44.7 122 7.2 145 .4 83 Second 26.1 170 1.6 186 .0 140 Middle 29.4 191 8.5 214 .0 155 Fourth 38.1 212 1.4 217 .0 126 Richest 27.4 205 3.1 215 1.2 153 Total 32.4 900 4.2 977 .3 656 1 MICS indicator 9.10 2 MICS indicator 9.11 3 MICS indicator 9.12 ( ) Figures that are based on 25–49 unweighted cases The frequency of sexual behaviours that increase the The frequency of sexual behaviours that increase the risk of HIV infection among young women and men is risk of HIV infection among young women and men is presented in Tables HA.8 and HA.8M and Figure HA.2. presented in Tables HA.8 and HA.8M and Figure HA.2. About 2 percent of women and 4 percent of men had sex About 2 percent of women and 4 percent of men had sex before the age of 15. A higher percentage of young men in before the age of 15. A higher percentage of young men in rural than in urban areas were reported to have had sex rural than in urban areas were reported to have had sex before the age of 15 (6 percent vs. 3 percent). before the age of 15 (6 percent vs. 3 percent). Sexual behaviour and condom use among women (15–49) Sexual behaviour and condom use among women (15–49) and men (15–29) who had sex with more than one partner and men (15–29) who had sex with more than one partner in the last 12 months was assessed. About 2 percent of in the last 12 months was assessed. About 2 percent of women aged 15–49 years reported having sex with more women aged 15–49 years reported having sex with more than one partner within the previous 12 months (Table than one partner within the previous 12 months (Table HA.9). Of those women, more than half (57 percent) HA.9). Of those women, more than half (57 percent) reported using a condom the last time they had sex.reported using a condom the last time they had sex. MULTIPLE INDICATOR CLUSTER SURVEY 2010220 Percentage of women who: Percent of women age 15–49 years who had more than one sexual partner in the last 12 months, who also reported that a condom was used the last time they had sex2 Number of women age 15–49 years who had more than one sexual partner in the last 12 months Ever had sex Had sex in the last 12 months Had sex with more than one partner in last 12 months1 Number of women age 15–49 years Region  Belgrade 92.6 86.6 3.5 1142 (48.4) 40 Vojvodina 90.9 83.4 1.8 1376 (*) 25 Sumadija and Western Serbia 86.3 82.6 1.7 1517 (*) 26 Southern and Eastern Serbia 88.7 83.5 .3 1351 (*) 4 Area  Urban 89.6 83.9 2.3 3155 56.5 72 Rural 89.1 83.8 1.0 2230 (*) 21 Age  15–24 61.4 58.8 4.3 1364 (64.5) 59 25–29 98.5 93.0 1.5 846 (*) 13 15–29 75.6 71.9 3.2 2210 63.5 72 30–39 98.8 94.5 1.0 1566 (*) 16 40–49 99.4 90.0 .4 1609 (*) 6 Marital status  Ever married/in union 99.8 94.9 .5 3730 (13.5) 20 Never married/in union 66.0 59.0 4.5 1655 (68.7) 74 Education Primary 94.3 86.1 1.2 704 (*) 8 Secondary 86.0 81.2 1.3 3067 (53.9) 40 Higher 93.8 88.0 2.8 1587 (60.5) 45 Wealth index quintiles  Poorest 88.1 82.5 1.7 750 (*) 13 Second 90.7 84.6 .8 1066 (*) 8 Middle 87.3 81.6 2.5 1080 (*) 27 Fourth 90.2 84.0 1.6 1217 (*) 19 Richest 90.2 85.8 2.0 1273 (*) 26 Total 89.4 83.9 1.7 5385 57.1 94 1 MICS indicator 9.13 2 MICS indicator 9.14 ( ) Figures that are based on 25–49 unweighted cases (*) Figures that are based on less than 25 unweighted cases Table HA.9: Sex with multiple partners, Serbia, 2010 Percentage of women age 15–49 years who ever had sex, percentage who had sex in the last 12 months, percentage who have had sex with more than one partner in the last 12 months and among those who had sex with multiple partners, the percentage who used a condom at last sex As for young women (15–24), 4 percent reported having As for young women (15–24), 4 percent reported having sex with more than one partner within the last 12 months sex with more than one partner within the last 12 months and 65 percent of them used a condom the last time they and 65 percent of them used a condom the last time they had sex (Table HA.10). had sex (Table HA.10). Some 54 percent of women with secondary education used Some 54 percent of women with secondary education used a condom during higher risk sex in the year preceding a condom during higher risk sex in the year preceding the survey, and 61 percent of women with higher or high the survey, and 61 percent of women with higher or high education used a condom with such a partner. education used a condom with such a partner. MONITORING THE SITUATION OF CHILDREN AND WOMEN 221 Table HA.10: Sex with multiple partners among young women, Serbia, 2010 Percentage of women age 15–24 years who ever had sex, percentage who had sex in the last 12 months, percentage who have had sex with more than one partner in the last 12 months and among those who had sex with multiple partners, the percentage who used a condom at last sex Percentage of women age 15–24 years who: Percent of women age 15–24 years who had more than one sexual partner in the last 12 months, who also reported that a condom was used the last time they had sex Number of women age 15–24 years who had more than one sexual partner in the last 12 months Ever had sex Had sex in the last 12 months Had sex with more than one partner in last 12 months Number of women age 15–24 years Region  Belgrade 74.6 70.9 10.4 321 (*) 33 Vojvodina 63.9 60.5 2.4 317 (*) 8 Sumadija and Western Serbia 50.4 50.2 3.7 392 (*) 15 Southern and Eastern Serbia 59.1 55.5 1.0 333 (*) 3 Area Urban 63.7 61.4 5.8 814 (62.1) 47 Rural 57.9 54.9 2.1 549 (*) 11 Age 15–19 27.6 26.4 3.0 659 (*) 20 20–24 92.9 89.1 5.5 705 (70.9) 39 Marital status Ever married/in union 100.0 99.3 3.4 255 (*) 9 Never married/in union 52.5 49.4 4.5 1109 (72.3) 50 Education Primary 68.9 67.1 2.5 112 (*) 3 Secondary 47.6 46.0 3.5 789 (*) 28 Higher 82.8 78.3 6.1 457 (*) 28 Wealth index quintiles  Poorest 59.5 58.4 2.7 199 (*) 5 Second 66.8 64.0 2.5 276 (*) 7 Middle 52.8 51.1 6.8 267 (*) 18 Fourth 59.7 57.2 2.8 287 (*) 8 Richest 66.3 62.2 6.1 334 (*) 20 Total 61.4 58.8 4.3 1364 (64.5) 59 ( ) Figures that are based on 25–49 unweighted cases (*) Figures that are based on less than 25 unweighted cases Figure HA.2: Sexual behaviour that increases risk of HIV infection, Serbia, 2010 8 9 10 MULTIPLE INDICATOR CLUSTER SURVEY 2010222 Overall, 22 percent of men between 15–29 years of age Overall, 22 percent of men between 15–29 years of age reported having sex with more than one partner (Table reported having sex with more than one partner (Table HA.9M). Of those men, 60 percent reported using a HA.9M). Of those men, 60 percent reported using a condom the last time they had sex (59 percent with condom the last time they had sex (59 percent with secondary education and 72 percent with higher or high secondary education and 72 percent with higher or high education). Similar patterns are observed for young men education). Similar patterns are observed for young men aged 15–24 years (Table HA.10M).aged 15–24 years (Table HA.10M). Table HA.9M: Sex with multiple partners, Serbia, 2010 Percentage of men age 15–29 years who ever had sex, percentage who had sex in the last 12 months, percentage who have had sex with more than one partner in the last 12 months and among those who had sex with multiple partners, the percentage who used a condom at last sex Percentage of men who: Percent of men age 15–29 years who had more than one sexual partner in the last 12 months, who also reported that a condom was used the last time they had sex Number of men age 15–29 years who had more than one sexual partner in the last 12 months Ever had sex Had sex in the last 12 months Had sex with more than one partner in last 12 months Number of men age 15–29 years Region Belgrade 89.3 88.3 30.7 319 71.3 98 Vojvodina 82.2 78.4 19.0 408 64.0 77 Sumadija and Western Serbia 76.5 73.9 26.7 448 54.3 120 Southern and Eastern Serbia 80.1 75.8 14.1 408 (47.1) 57 Area  Urban 81.4 78.3 23.3 908 61.5 211 Rural 81.5 78.6 20.9 675 57.7 141 Age 15–24 70.1 67.2 22.0 977 63.3 216 25–29 99.8 96.7 22.6 606 54.6 137 Marital status Ever married/in union 100.0 99.1 11.1 309 (16.3) 34 Never married/in union 76.9 73.5 25.0 1274 64.7 318 Education Primary 85.2 79.1 22.0 120 (19.4) 27 Secondary 74.5 72.3 20.5 1032 58.5 211 Higher 97.0 93.1 26.6 429 72.2 114 Wealth index quintiles  Poorest 76.7 73.4 20.2 235 (42.5) 47 Second 86.4 82.5 20.9 326 (58.1) 68 Middle 82.1 80.4 26.2 321 50.9 84 Fourth 75.8 71.6 18.8 334 68.5 63 Richest 84.7 82.7 24.5 367 73.1 90 Total 81.4 78.5 22.3 1583 60.0 352 ( ) Figures that are based on 25–49 unweighted cases MONITORING THE SITUATION OF CHILDREN AND WOMEN 223 Table HA.10M: Sex with multiple partners among young men, Serbia, 2010 Percentage of men age 15–24 years who ever had sex, percentage who had sex in the last 12 months, percentage who have had sex with more than one partner in the last 12 months and among those who had sex with multiple partners, the percentage who used a condom at last sex Percentage of men age 15–24 years who: Percent of men age 15–24 years who had more than one sexual partner in the last 12 months, who also reported that a condom was used the last time they had sex Number of men age 15–24 years who had more than one sexual partner in the last 12 months Ever had sex Had sex in the last 12 months Had sex with more than one partner in last 12 months Number of men age 15–24 years Region  Belgrade 82.2 80.6 32.0 192 70.3 61 Vojvodina 72.3 67.9 22.6 263 (65.8) 59 Sumadija and Western Serbia 62.9 61.2 25.4 280 (50.1) 71 Southern and Eastern Serbia 66.4 62.6 9.7 242 (*) 24 Area Urban 69.6 67.0 23.3 556 68.2 129 Rural 70.8 67.3 20.4 422 56.0 86 Age 15–19 42.0 38.5 14.7 465 62.8 68 20–24 95.7 93.2 28.8 512 63.6 147 Marital status Ever married/in union 100.0 99.7 15.5 77 (*) 12 Never married/in union 67.6 64.4 22.6 900 67.1 204 Education Primary 75.2 69.4 27.4 72 (*) 20 Secondary 61.5 59.2 19.8 680 58.7 135 Higher 94.3 90.2 27.0 224 (87.6) 61 Wealth index quintiles Poorest 62.2 57.4 17.6 145 (44.1) 25 Second 76.3 74.9 21.8 186 (59.4) 41 Middle 73.8 72.4 28.8 214 (48.9) 62 Fourth 62.8 58.0 16.7 217 (89.1) 36 Richest 73.9 71.1 23.9 215 (75.1) 51 Total 70.1 67.2 22.0 977 63.3 216 ( ) Figures that are based on 25–49 unweighted cases (*) Figures that are based on less than 25 unweighted cases Tables HA.11 and HA.11M present the percentage of Tables HA.11 and HA.11M present the percentage of women and men aged 15–24 who ever had sex, who had women and men aged 15–24 who ever had sex, who had sex in the last 12 months, who have had sex with a non-sex in the last 12 months, who have had sex with a non- marital, non-cohabiting partner in the last 12 months marital, non-cohabiting partner in the last 12 months and among those who had sex with a non-marital, non-and among those who had sex with a non-marital, non- cohabiting partner, the percentage who used a condom cohabiting partner, the percentage who used a condom the last time they had sex with such a partner. The the last time they had sex with such a partner. The percentage of young women and men who have had sex percentage of young women and men who have had sex with a non-marital, non-cohabiting partner increases with a non-marital, non-cohabiting partner increases with the respondent’s education level. with the respondent’s education level. MULTIPLE INDICATOR CLUSTER SURVEY 2010224 Table HA.11: Sex with non-regular partners, Serbia, 2010 Percentage of women age 15–24 years who ever had sex, percentage who had sex in the last 12 months, percentage who have had sex with a non-marital, non-cohabiting partner in the last 12 months and among those who had sex with a non-marital, non-cohabiting partner, the percentage who used a condom the last time they had sex with such a partner Percentage of women 15–24 who: Number of women age 15–24 years Percentage who had sex with a non-marital, non-cohabiting partner in the last 12 months1 Number of women age 15–24 years who had sex in the last 12 months Percentage of women age 15–24 years who had sex with a non-marital, non-cohabiting partner in the last 12 months, who also reported that a condom was used the last time they had sex with such a partner2 Number of women age 15–24 years who had sex in last 12 months with a non-marital, non- cohabiting partner Ever had sex Had sex in the last 12 months Region Belgrade 74.6 70.9 321 59.1 228 75.9 190 Vojvodina 63.9 60.5 317 40.9 192 73.5 130 Sumadija and Western Serbia 50.4 50.2 392 33.9 197 85.7 133 Southern and Eastern Serbia 59.1 55.5 333 32.6 185 72.9 109 Area  Urban 63.7 61.4 814 48.9 500 78.9 398 Rural 57.9 54.9 549 29.7 302 72.7 163 Age 15–19 27.6 26.4 659 21.7 174 84.0 143 20–24 92.9 89.1 705 59.4 628 74.7 418 Marital status Ever married/ in union 100.0 99.3 255 5.1 253 (*) 13 Never married/ in union 52.5 49.4 1109 49.4 548 77.6 548 Education Primary 68.9 67.1 112 14.2 75 (*) 16 Secondary 47.6 46.0 789 27.1 363 79.3 214 Higher 82.8 78.3 457 72.5 358 77.1 331 Wealth index quintiles  Poorest 59.5 58.4 199 19.7 116 (60.1) 39 Second 66.8 64.0 276 41.1 177 71.9 114 Middle 52.8 51.1 267 35.3 136 80.9 94 Fourth 59.7 57.2 287 48.4 164 79.8 139 Richest 66.3 62.2 334 52.4 208 80.1 175 Total 61.4 58.8 1364 41.2 802 77.1 561 1 MICS indicator 9.15 2 MICS indicator 9.16; MDG indicator 6.2 ( ) Figures that are based on 25–49 unweighted cases (*) Figures that are based on less than 25 unweighted cases MONITORING THE SITUATION OF CHILDREN AND WOMEN 225 Table HA.11M: Sex with non-regular partners, Serbia, 2010 Percentage of men age 15–24 years who ever had sex, percentage who had sex in the last 12 months, percentage who have had sex with a non-marital, non-cohabiting partner in the last 12 months and among those who had sex with a non-marital, non-cohabiting partner, the percentage who used a condom the last time they had sex with such a partner Percentage of men 15–24 who: Number of men age 15–24 years Percentage who had sex with a non-marital, non-cohabiting partner in the last 12 months1 Number of men age 15–24 years who had sex in the last 12 months Percentage of men age 15–24 years who had sex with a non-marital, non- cohabiting partner in the last 12 months, who also reported that a condom was used the last time they had sex with such a partner2 Number of men age 15–24 years who had sex in last 12 months with a non-marital, non- cohabiting partner Ever had sex Had sex in the last 12 months Region Belgrade 82.2 80.6 192 75.9 155 86.7 146 Vojvodina 72.3 67.9 263 62.1 179 76.5 163 Sumadija and Western Serbia 62.9 61.2 280 56.4 171 74.3 158 Southern and Eastern Serbia 66.4 62.6 242 52.3 152 84.0 127 Area  Urban 69.6 67.0 556 62.7 372 81.1 349 Rural 70.8 67.3 422 58.1 284 78.6 245 Age 15–19 42.0 38.5 465 37.4 179 85.9 174 20–24 95.7 93.2 512 82.0 477 77.6 420 Marital status  Ever married/ in union 100.0 99.7 77 18.3 77 (*) 14 Never married/ in union 67.6 64.4 900 64.4 580 80.4 580 Education Primary 75.2 69.4 72 45.4 50 (52.3) 33 Secondary 61.5 59.2 680 54.0 403 79.2 367 Higher 94.3 90.2 224 86.2 202 86.4 193 Wealth index quintiles Poorest 62.2 57.4 145 42.8 83 62.6 62 Second 76.3 74.9 186 66.7 140 80.1 124 Middle 73.8 72.4 214 66.5 155 83.9 142 Fourth 62.8 58.0 217 55.8 126 84.7 121 Richest 73.9 71.1 215 67.0 153 79.8 144 Total 70.1 67.2 977 60.7 656 80.0 594 1 MICS indicator 9.15 2 MICS indicator 9.16; MDG indicator 6.2 ( ) Figures that are based on 25–49 unweighted cases (*) Figures that are based on less than 25 unweighted cases MULTIPLE INDICATOR CLUSTER SURVEY 2010226 Sexual Behaviour Related to HIV Sexual Behaviour Related to HIV Transmission in Roma Settlements Transmission in Roma Settlements The frequency of sexual behaviours that increase the risk The frequency of sexual behaviours that increase the risk of HIV infection among young women and men (15–24) of HIV infection among young women and men (15–24) in Roma settlements is presented in Tables HA.8R and in Roma settlements is presented in Tables HA.8R and HA.8R.M and Figure HA.2R. In total, 14 percent of HA.8R.M and Figure HA.2R. In total, 14 percent of women and 13 percent of men had sex before 15. Overall, women and 13 percent of men had sex before 15. Overall, 6 percent of young women and 1 percent of men who had 6 percent of young women and 1 percent of men who had sex in the 12 months preceding the survey had sex with a sex in the 12 months preceding the survey had sex with a partner who is ten or more years older.partner who is ten or more years older. Table HA.8R: Sexual behaviour that increases the risk of HIV infection, Roma Settlements, 2010 Percentage of never-married young women age 15–24 years who have never had sex, percentage of young women age 15–24 years who have had sex before age 15, and percentage of young women age 15–24 years who had sex with a man 10 or more years older during the last 12 months   Percentage of never-married women age 15–24 years who have never had sex1 Number of never- married women age 15–24 years Percentage of women age 15–24 years who had sex before age 152 Number of women age 15–24 years Percentage of women age 15–24 years who had sex in the last 12 months with a man 10 or more years older3 Number of women age 15–24 years who had sex in the 12 months preceding the survey Area  Urban 83.6 191 12.0 526 4.1 359 Rural 81.2 65 19.3 256 8.8 195 Age  15–19 91.1 211 14.6 429 5.6 229 20–24 (45.0) 45 14.3 354 5.9 326 Marital status  Ever married/in union na na 21.3 527 6.2 512 Never married/in union 83.0 256 .4 256 (.8) 42 Education  None (*) 23 24.3 115 11.7 91 Primary 85.1 159 15.3 550 5.1 402 Secondary 84.8 66 .8 110 1.5 53 Wealth index quintiles  Poorest (82.3) 39 23.1 157 10.5 116 Second (90.9) 42 20.6 162 7.0 123 Middle (96.7) 44 12.5 158 4.9 115 Fourth (76.8) 65 10.4 165 4.1 113 Richest (75.4) 66 4.6 142 1.0 89 Total 83.0 256 14.4 783 5.8 554 1 MICS indicator 9.10 2 MICS indicator 9.11 3 MICS indicator 9.12 ( ) Figures that are based on 25–49 unweighted cases (*) Figures that are based on less than 25 unweighted cases MULTIPLE INDICATOR CLUSTER SURVEY 2010226 MONITORING THE SITUATION OF CHILDREN AND WOMEN 227 Table HA.8R.M: Sexual behaviour that increases the risk of HIV infection, Roma Settlements, 2010 Percentage of never-married young men age 15–24 years who have never had sex, percentage of young men age 15–24 years who have had sex before age 15, and percentage of young men age 15–24 years who had sex with a woman 10 or more years older during the last 12 months Percentage of never-married men age 15–24 years who have never had sex1 Number of never- married men age 15–24 years Percentage of men age 15–24 years who had sex before age 152 Number of men age 15–24 years Percentage of men age 15–24 years who had sex in the last 12 months with a woman 10 or more years older3 Number of men age 15–24 years who had sex in the 12 months preceding the survey Area  Urban 47.8 222 13.8 399 .4 285 Rural 71.2 92 12.2 189 1.1 118 Age  15–19 67.6 231 10.0 295 .8 132 20–24 18.7 83 16.7 293 .5 271 Marital status  Ever married/in union na na 18.0 274 .5 272 Never married/in union 54.7 315 9.2 315 .8 131 Education  None (*) 13 (21.8) 38 (.0) 25 Primary 60.9 178 13.5 400 .8 284 Secondary 42.2 122 11.2 146 .0 89 Wealth index quintiles  Poorest 73.9 76 17.3 130 .0 71 Second (67.1) 55 13.7 126 1.5 86 Middle (41.8) 68 21.9 121 .0 92 Fourth (54.6) 48 8.6 113 .0 81 Richest (36.0) 67 2.4 98 1.4 74 Total 54.7 315 13.3 588 .6 403 1 MICS indicator 9.10 2 MICS indicator 9.11 3 MICS indicator 9.12 ( ) Figures that are based on 25–49 unweighted cases (*) Figures that are based on less than 25 unweighted cases MONITORING THE SITUATION OF CHILDREN AND WOMEN 227 Figure HA.2R: Sexual behaviour that increases risk of HIV infection, Roma settlements, 2010 MULTIPLE INDICATOR CLUSTER SURVEY 2010228 Overall, 2 percent of women aged between 15–49 years Overall, 2 percent of women aged between 15–49 years reported having sex with more than one partner within reported having sex with more than one partner within the last 12 months. Of those women, 26 percent reported the last 12 months. Of those women, 26 percent reported using a condom the last time they had sex. In a group of using a condom the last time they had sex. In a group of young women (15–24), some 3 percent reported having sex young women (15–24), some 3 percent reported having sex with more than one partner within the last year. with more than one partner within the last year. Table HA.9R: Sex with multiple partners, Roma Settlements, 2010 Percentage of women age 15–49 years who ever had sex, percentage who had sex in the last 12 months, percentage who have had sex with more than one partner in the last 12 months and among those who had sex with multiple partners, the percentage who used a condom at last sex Percentage of women who: Percent of women age 15–49 years who had more than one sexual partner in the last 12 months, who also reported that a condom was used the last time they had sex2 Number of women age 15–49 years who had more than one sexual partner in the last 12 months Ever had sex Had sex in the last 12 months Had sex with more than one partner in last 12 months1 Number of women age 15–49 years Area  Urban 88.9 83.1 2.7 1461 (29.6) 39 Rural 91.7 85.1 .8 657 (*) 5 Age  15–24 72.8 70.8 3.0 783 (*) 24 25–29 99.6 93.7 4.3 363 (*) 15 15–29 81.3 78.1 3.4 1145 26.3 39 30–39 99.7 91.5 .6 571 (*) 3 40–49 99.9 88.8 .5 402 (*) 2 Marital status  Ever married/in union 100.0 93.5 1.2 1827 (16.6) 22 Never married/in union 25.8 22.3 7.7 291 (*) 22 Education  None 93.9 85.6 3.2 363 (*) 11 Primary 90.4 84.9 1.8 1437 (29.7) 26 Secondary 81.1 74.8 1.2 295 (*) 4 Wealth index quintiles  Poorest 91.7 81.6 1.7 396 (*) 7 Second 90.0 85.3 1.8 404 (*) 7 Middle 89.5 85.5 3.7 404 (*) 15 Fourth 89.2 83.1 1.3 468 (*) 6 Richest 88.8 83.3 2.2 447 (*) 10 Total 89.8 83.7 2.1 2118 26.2 44 1 MICS indicator 9.13 2 MICS indicator 9.14 ( ) Figures that are based on 25–49 unweighted cases (*) Figures that are based on less than 25 unweighted cases MULTIPLE INDICATOR CLUSTER SURVEY 2010228 MONITORING THE SITUATION OF CHILDREN AND WOMEN 229 Table HA.10R: Sex with multiple partners among young women, Roma Settlements, 2010 Percentage of women age 15–24 years who ever had sex, percentage who had sex in the last 12 months and percentage who have had sex with more than one partner in the last 12 months Percentage of women age 15–24 years who: Ever had sex Had sex in the last 12 months Had sex with more than one partner in last 12 months Number of women age 15–24 years Area  Urban 69.6 68.2 3.7 526 Rural 79.4 76.1 1.6 256 Age  15–19 55.1 53.3 1.8 429 20–24 94.3 92.1 4.5 354 Marital status  Ever married/in union 99.9 97.3 2.2 527 Never married/in union 17.0 16.4 4.7 256 Education  None 81.6 79.3 1.2 115 Primary 75.4 73.1 3.1 550 Secondary 49.1 48.6 3.3 110 Wealth index quintiles  Poorest 79.0 73.7 2.8 157 Second 76.7 75.7 4.1 162 Middle 73.3 73.0 2.3 158 Fourth 69.6 68.3 2.4 165 Richest 64.8 62.5 3.5 142 Total 72.8 70.8 3.0 783 (*) The column “Number of women age 15–24 years who had more than one sexual partner in the last 12 months” is excluded due to a small number of occurences (less than 25 unweighted cases) As for men, 21 percent of men aged 15–29 reported having As for men, 21 percent of men aged 15–29 reported having sex with more than one partner. Of those men, 27 percent sex with more than one partner. Of those men, 27 percent reported using a condom the last time they had sex. reported using a condom the last time they had sex. Within the younger age group of men (15–24) condom-use Within the younger age group of men (15–24) condom-use among those who had sex with more than one partner is a among those who had sex with more than one partner is a bit higher (35 percent).bit higher (35 percent). MONITORING THE SITUATION OF CHILDREN AND WOMEN 229 MULTIPLE INDICATOR CLUSTER SURVEY 2010230 Table HA.9R.M: Sex with multiple partners, Roma Settlements, 2010 Percentage of men age 15–29 years who ever had sex, percentage who had sex in the last 12 months, percentage who have had sex with more than one partner in the last 12 months and among those who had sex with multiple partners, the percentage who used a condom at last sex Percentage of men who: Percent of men age 15–29 years who had more than one sexual partner in the last 12 months. who also reported that a condom was used the last time they had sex Number of men age 15–29 years who had more than one sexual partner in the last 12 months Ever had sex Had sex in the last 12 months Had sex with more than one partner in last 12 months Number of men age 15–29 years Area  Urban 81.8 78.8 24.9 598 24.4 149 Rural 76.5 73.3 12.2 279 35.8 34 Age  15–24 70.8 68.5 21.1 588 34.5 124 25–29 99.1 94.5 20.4 289 9.6 59 Marital status  Ever married/in union 100.0 98.5 17.3 535 6.1 93 Never married/in union 48.9 43.4 26.4 342 47.6 90 Education  None 82.1 68.8 3.3 66 (*) 2 Primary 81.9 79.7 20.4 599 19.8 122 Secondary 73.3 71.0 26.2 202 (42.7) 53 Wealth index quintiles  Poorest 70.7 64.8 11.7 191 (20.1) 22 Second 77.8 76.2 15.6 166 (*) 26 Middle 81.8 81.2 26.9 172 (53.8) 46 Fourth 85.8 79.5 16.4 185 (*) 30 Richest 85.1 85.1 35.6 163 (15.1) 58 Total 80.1 77.0 20.9 877 26.5 183 ( ) Figures that are based on 25–49 unweighted cases (*) Figures that are based on less than 25 unweighted cases MULTIPLE INDICATOR CLUSTER SURVEY 2010230 MONITORING THE SITUATION OF CHILDREN AND WOMEN 231 Table HA.10R.M: Sex with multiple partners among young men, Roma Settlements, 2010 Percentage of men age 15–24 years who ever had sex, percentage who had sex in the last 12 months, percentage who have had sex with more than one partner in the last 12 months and among those who had sex with multiple partners, the percentage who used a condom at last sex Percentage of men age 15–24 years who: Percent of men age 15–24 years who had more than one sexual partner in the last 12 months, who also reported that a condom was used the last time they had sex Number of men age 15–24 years who had more than one sexual partner in the last 12 months Ever had sex Had sex in the last 12 months Had sex with more than one partner in last 12 months Number of men age 15–24 years Area Urban 73.4 71.4 25.9 399 32.6 103 Rural 65.3 62.3 11.0 189 (44.0) 21 Age  15–19 47.0 44.7 14.0 295 (45.6) 41 20–24 94.7 92.5 28.3 293 29.0 83 Marital status  Ever married/in union 100.0 99.3 14.8 274 (.0) 41 Never married/in union 45.3 41.7 26.6 315 51.2 84 Education  None (68.9) (66.3) (.0) 38 (*) 0 Primary 72.9 71.0 19.2 400 24.5 77 Secondary 64.7 61.5 29.3 146 (*) 43 Wealth index quintiles  Poorest 57.0 54.4 9.5 130 (*) 12 Second 70.7 68.6 16.9 126 (*) 21 Middle 76.4 75.6 33.7 121 (*) 41 Fourth 76.8 71.3 11.8 113 (*) 13 Richest 75.2 75.2 37.1 98 (*) 36 Total 70.8 68.5 21.1 588 34.5 124 ( ) Figures that are based on 25–49 unweighted cases (*) Figures that are based on less than 25 unweighted cases Tables HA.11R and HA.11R.M present the percentages of Tables HA.11R and HA.11R.M present the percentages of young women and men who have ever had sex, who had young women and men who have ever had sex, who had sex in the last 12 months, who have had sex with a non-sex in the last 12 months, who have had sex with a non- marital, non-cohabiting partner in the last 12 months marital, non-cohabiting partner in the last 12 months and among those who had sex with a non-marital, non-and among those who had sex with a non-marital, non- cohabiting partner, the percentage who used a condom the cohabiting partner, the percentage who used a condom the last time they had sex with such a partner. The percentage last time they had sex with such a partner. The percentage of young men who have had sex with a non-marital, non-of young men who have had sex with a non-marital, non- cohabiting partner is much higher (32 percent) compared cohabiting partner is much higher (32 percent) compared to young women (9 percent).to young women (9 percent). MONITORING THE SITUATION OF CHILDREN AND WOMEN 231 MULTIPLE INDICATOR CLUSTER SURVEY 2010232 Table HA.11R: Sex with non-regular partners, Roma Settlements, 2010 Percentage of women age 15–24 years who ever had sex, percentage who had sex in the last 12 months, percentage who have had sex with a non-marital, non-cohabiting partner in the last 12 months and among those who had sex with a non-marital, non-cohabiting partner, the percentage who used a condom the last time they had sex with such a partner Percentage of women 15–24 who: Number of women age 15–24 years Percentage who had sex with a non-marital, non-cohabiting partner in the last 12 months1 Number of women age 15–24 years who had sex in the last 12 months Percentage of women age 15–24 years who had sex with a non- marital, non-cohabiting partner in the last 12 months, who also reported that a condom was used the last time they had sex with such a partner2 Number of women age 15–24 years who had sex in last 12 months with a non-marital, non- cohabiting partner Ever had sex Had sex in the last 12 months Area  Urban 69.6 68.2 526 8.4 359 (32.0) 44 Rural 79.4 76.1 256 9.8 195 (45.7) 25 Age  15–19 55.1 53.3 429 7.9 229 (40.1) 34 20–24 94.3 92.1 354 10.1 326 (34.0) 36 Marital status  Ever married/in union 99.9 97.3 527 5.4 512 (20.9) 28 Never married/in union 17.0 16.4 256 16.0 42 (48.1) 41 Education  None 81.6 79.3 115 3.3 91 (*) 4 Primary 75.4 73.1 550 8.2 402 (21.1) 45 Secondary 49.1 48.6 110 11.4 53 (*) 13 Wealth index quintiles  Poorest 79.0 73.7 157 6.5 116 (*) 10 Second 76.7 75.7 162 7.3 123 (*) 12 Middle 73.3 73.0 158 5.7 115 (*) 9 Fourth 69.6 68.3 165 12.3 113 (*) 20 Richest 64.8 62.5 142 12.9 89 (*) 18 Total 72.8 70.8 783 8.9 554 37.0 70 1 MICS indicator 9.15 2 MICS indicator 9.16; MDG indicator 6.2 ( ) Figures that are based on 25–49 unweighted cases (*) Figures that are based on less than 25 unweighted cases MULTIPLE INDICATOR CLUSTER SURVEY 2010232 MONITORING THE SITUATION OF CHILDREN AND WOMEN 233 Table HA.11R.M: Sex with non-regular partners, Roma Settlements, 2010 Percentage of men age 15–24 years who ever had sex, percentage who had sex in the last 12 months, percentage who have had sex with a non-marital, non-cohabiting partner in the last 12 months and among those who had sex with a non-marital, non-cohabiting partner, the percentage who used a condom the last time they had sex with such a partner Percentage of men 15–24 who: Number of men age 15–24 years Percentage who had sex with a non-marital, non-cohabiting partner in the last 12 months1 Number of men age 15–24 years who had sex in the last 12 months Percentage of men age 15–24 years who had sex with a non- marital, non-cohabiting partner in the last 12 months, who also reported that a condom was used the last time they had sex with such a partner2 Number of men age 15–24 years who had sex in last 12 months with a non-marital, non- cohabiting partner Ever had sex Had sex in the last 12 months Area  Urban 73.4 71.4 399 38.3 285 52.2 153 Rural 65.3 62.3 189 19.7 118 47.0 37 Age  15–19 47.0 44.7 295 27.3 132 44.5 81 20–24 94.7 92.5 293 37.3 271 56.1 109 Marital status  Ever married/ in union 100.0 99.3 274 21.5 272 25.8 59 Never married/in union 45.3 41.7 315 41.7 131 62.5 131 Education  None (68.9) (66.3) 38 (13.4) 25 (*) 5 Primary 72.9 71.0 400 27.4 284 39.0 109 Secondary 64.7 61.5 146 48.8 89 (70.4) 71 Wealth index quintiles  Poorest 57.0 54.4 130 23.3 71 (17.1) 30 Second 70.7 68.6 126 24.2 86 (39.5) 30 Middle 76.4 75.6 121 44.7 92 (63.4) 54 Fourth 76.8 71.3 113 20.3 81 (*) 23 Richest 75.2 75.2 98 53.4 74 (66.3) 52 Total 70.8 68.5 588 32.3 403 51.2 190 1 MICS indicator 9.15 2 MICS indicator 9.16; MDG indicator 6.2 ( ) Figures that are based on 25–49 unweighted cases (*) Figures that are based on less than 25 unweighted cases MONITORING THE SITUATION OF CHILDREN AND WOMEN 233 MULTIPLE INDICATOR CLUSTER SURVEY 2010234 The 2010 Serbia MICS collected information on the The 2010 Serbia MICS collected information on the exposure of women aged between 15–49 and men aged exposure of women aged between 15–49 and men aged between 15–29 to the mass media and their use of between 15–29 to the mass media and their use of computers and the internet.computers and the internet. This information will help to understand:This information will help to understand:  whether respondents are exposed to newspapers/ whether respondents are exposed to newspapers/ magazines, radio and televisionmagazines, radio and television  ever use and current/recent use of computers ever use and current/recent use of computers  ever use and current/recent use of the internet. ever use and current/recent use of the internet. Access to Mass MediaAccess to Mass Media The proportion of women who read a newspaper, listen The proportion of women who read a newspaper, listen to the radio and watch television at least once a week is to the radio and watch television at least once a week is shown in table MT.1.shown in table MT.1. At least once a week, 75 percent of women in Serbia At least once a week, 75 percent of women in Serbia read a newspaper, 72 percent listen to the radio and 98 read a newspaper, 72 percent listen to the radio and 98 percent watch television. Overall, 0.5 percent does not percent watch television. Overall, 0.5 percent does not XIIIXIII ACCESS TO MASS ACCESS TO MASS MEDIA AND USE MEDIA AND USE OF INFORMATION/OF INFORMATION/ COMMUNICATION COMMUNICATION TECHNOLOGYTECHNOLOGY have regular exposure to any of the three media, while have regular exposure to any of the three media, while 58 percent are exposed to all the three types of media 58 percent are exposed to all the three types of media at least on a weekly basis. at least on a weekly basis. Women under the age of 25 are more likely than older Women under the age of 25 are more likely than older women to report exposure to all three types of mass women to report exposure to all three types of mass media combined. Differentials by residence, education media combined. Differentials by residence, education and socio-economic status are observed for exposure and socio-economic status are observed for exposure to all types of media, primarily due to differentials in to all types of media, primarily due to differentials in exposure to print media. It seems that access to the exposure to print media. It seems that access to the printed media is connected to higher living standards. printed media is connected to higher living standards. Women with higher education are almost twice as Women with higher education are almost twice as likely to have been exposed to all types of media than likely to have been exposed to all types of media than women with primary education. Similarly, 65 percent women with primary education. Similarly, 65 percent of women in the highest wealth index quintile have of women in the highest wealth index quintile have been exposed to all three media forms, while the been exposed to all three media forms, while the corresponding proportion of women in the lowest corresponding proportion of women in the lowest wealth index quintile is only 35 percent. Larger wealth index quintile is only 35 percent. Larger proportions of women are exposed to all media types proportions of women are exposed to all media types in urban areas (60 percent) than in rural areas (54 in urban areas (60 percent) than in rural areas (54 percent). Exposure of women to all three mass media percent). Exposure of women to all three mass media is greatest in Belgrade (69 percent) and lowest in is greatest in Belgrade (69 percent) and lowest in Southern and Eastern Serbia (48 percent).Southern and Eastern Serbia (48 percent). MONITORING THE SITUATION OF CHILDREN AND WOMEN 235 Table MT.1: Exposure to mass media, Serbia, 2010 Percentage of women age 15–49 years who are exposed to specific mass media on a weekly basis Percentage of women age 15–49 who: All three media at least once a week1 No media at least once a week Number of women age 15–49 years Read a newspaper at least once a week Listen to the radio at least once a week Watch television at least once a week Age  15–19 76.3 78.6 97.9 63.6 .5 659 20–24 79.4 79.8 97.5 65.2 .3 705 25–29 75.4 73.6 97.3 58.2 .9 846 15–29 76.9 77.1 97.5 62.0 .6 2210 30–34 74.2 69.5 98.0 57.2 1.0 775 35–39 76.1 73.0 98.3 58.9 .7 791 40–44 69.4 69.9 99.3 52.6 .3 703 45–49 71.9 65.3 99.0 49.8 .0 905 Region  Belgrade 87.2 75.6 97.0 68.9 .7 1142 Vojvodina 70.4 73.6 97.2 55.7 .9 1376 Sumadija and Western Serbia 72.4 77.6 99.0 59.5 .3 1517 Southern and Eastern Serbia 70.6 62.9 99.2 47.8 .3 1351 Area  Urban 79.8 70.7 98.1 60.4 .6 3155 Rural 67.2 74.9 98.3 53.6 .5 2230 Education  Primary 44.2 63.7 97.5 34.4 1.9 704 Secondary 76.2 72.3 99.0 58.4 .3 3067 Higher 86.2 76.9 97.0 67.3 .4 1587 Wealth index quintile  Poorest 44.7 66.2 97.0 35.2 1.9 750 Second 71.0 76.9 99.1 57.2 .2 1066 Middle 79.2 72.4 99.0 62.0 .0 1080 Fourth 80.6 71.5 97.2 60.3 1.0 1217 Richest 85.5 73.4 98.4 64.8 .1 1273 Total 74.6 72.4 98.2 57.6 .5 5385 1 MICS indicator MT.1 The data for men aged 15–29 are shown in table MT.1M. The data for men aged 15–29 are shown in table MT.1M. The percentage of men who read a newspaper and listen The percentage of men who read a newspaper and listen to the radio at least once a week are both 75 percent, to the radio at least once a week are both 75 percent, and 98 percent watch television. About 1 percent has no and 98 percent watch television. About 1 percent has no regular exposure to any of the three media. Overall, 60 regular exposure to any of the three media. Overall, 60 percent are exposed to all three types of media at least percent are exposed to all three types of media at least on a weekly basis. on a weekly basis. The table shows that, for men, the relationships between The table shows that, for men, the relationships between exposure to mass media and background characteristics exposure to mass media and background characteristics are generally similar to those observed among women. are generally similar to those observed among women. However, interestingly, men have a somewhat different However, interestingly, men have a somewhat different pattern of media exposure by age than women. While pattern of media exposure by age than women. While women aged 15–19 are more likely than women aged women aged 15–19 are more likely than women aged 25–29 to report exposure to all three types of media on 25–29 to report exposure to all three types of media on MULTIPLE INDICATOR CLUSTER SURVEY 2010236 a weekly basis, men aged 15–19 are generally less likely a weekly basis, men aged 15–19 are generally less likely than men aged 25–29 to be exposed to all three media than men aged 25–29 to be exposed to all three media because they are less likely to read a newspaper or listen because they are less likely to read a newspaper or listen to the radio on a weekly basis.to the radio on a weekly basis. Table MT.1M: Exposure to mass media, Serbia, 2010 Percentage of men age 15–29 years who are exposed to specific mass media on a weekly basis Percentage of men age 15–29 who: All three media at least once a week No media at least once a week Number of men age 15–29 years Read a newspaper at least once a week Listen to the radio at least once a week Watch television at least once a week Age  15–19 63.2 68.5 99.0 45.9 .8 465 20–24 79.3 75.1 96.8 63.1 .7 512 25–29 80.1 78.9 98.2 66.9 .8 606 Region  Belgrade 87.4 74.7 96.6 68.1 .7 319 Vojvodina 71.4 69.5 97.4 56.3 .7 408 Sumadija and Western Serbia 77.3 82.3 98.5 64.8 .9 448 Southern and Eastern Serbia 66.0 71.3 99.2 50.3 .8 408 Area  Urban 79.9 72.0 98.1 61.5 .5 908 Rural 68.2 78.2 97.8 56.8 1.1 675 Education  Primary 36.8 70.8 95.6 27.5 1.7 120 Secondary 74.8 75.2 98.7 59.9 .8 1032 Higher 86.0 74.3 97.0 68.0 .4 429 Wealth index quintile  Poorest 48.0 73.3 96.9 40.6 1.6 235 Second 71.1 82.3 98.6 61.2 .7 326 Middle 76.3 74.6 96.7 60.8 1.1 321 Fourth 82.2 71.2 98.5 63.7 .8 334 Richest 87.5 71.8 99.0 65.2 .0 367 Total 74.9 74.6 98.0 59.5 .8 1583 MONITORING THE SITUATION OF CHILDREN AND WOMEN 237 Access to Mass Media in Roma SettlementsAccess to Mass Media in Roma Settlements At least once a week, 23 percent of women in Roma At least once a week, 23 percent of women in Roma settlements in Serbia read a newspaper, 72 percent listen settlements in Serbia read a newspaper, 72 percent listen to the radio and 96 percent watch television. Overall, to the radio and 96 percent watch television. Overall, 1 percent has no regular exposure to any of the three 1 percent has no regular exposure to any of the three media, while 19 percent are exposed to all three types of media, while 19 percent are exposed to all three types of media at least on a weekly basis due to the low percentage media at least on a weekly basis due to the low percentage of women reading newspapers. of women reading newspapers. Table MT.1R: Exposure to mass media, Roma Settlements, 2010 Percentage of women age 15–49 years who are exposed to specific mass media on a weekly basis Percentage of women age 15–49 who: All three media at least once a week1 No media at least once a week Number of women age 15–49 years Read a newspaper at least once a week Listen to the radio at least once a week Watch television at least once a week Age  15–19 30.8 80.6 97.1 28.4 2.0 429 20–24 20.0 78.9 95.9 18.0 .8 354 25–29 22.0 68.2 95.9 17.4 2.1 363 15–29 24.7 76.1 96.4 21.7 1.7 1145 30–34 17.3 69.6 97.0 12.2 1.4 320 35–39 25.2 68.3 94.8 20.8 2.2 251 40–44 18.2 65.0 96.8 14.0 .2 193 45–49 18.8 65.7 97.3 16.6 .6 208 Area  Urban 25.6 70.3 96.9 21.4 1.2 1461 Rural 15.5 76.3 95.4 13.6 1.9 657 Education  None 3.0 60.9 91.2 3.0 .7 363 Primary 20.5 74.9 97.3 17.2 1.8 1437 Secondary 50.8 72.7 98.5 43.3 .6 295 Wealth index quintile  Poorest 7.5 55.9 84.9 5.8 5.5 396 Second 13.8 70.3 97.7 10.8 1.8 404 Middle 15.1 77.2 100.0 12.3 .0 404 Fourth 23.6 73.8 99.0 19.4 .4 468 Richest 48.9 82.1 99.4 43.6 .0 447 Total 22.5 72.2 96.4 19.0 1.4 2118 1 MICS indicator MT.1 Women under the age of 25 are more likely than older Women under the age of 25 are more likely than older women to report exposure to all three types of mass women to report exposure to all three types of mass media. Strong differentials by education and socio-media. Strong differentials by education and socio- economic status are observed for exposure to all types economic status are observed for exposure to all types of media, primarily due to differentials in exposure to of media, primarily due to differentials in exposure to print media. As is the case for the overall population in print media. As is the case for the overall population in Serbia, access to print media is connected to higher living Serbia, access to print media is connected to higher living standards among Roma women. It seems that Roma standards among Roma women. It seems that Roma women living in households within the poorest quintile women living in households within the poorest quintile have very low access to printed media.have very low access to printed media. MONITORING THE SITUATION OF CHILDREN AND WOMEN 237 MULTIPLE INDICATOR CLUSTER SURVEY 2010238 Women with secondary education are much more likely Women with secondary education are much more likely to have been exposed to all types of media than women to have been exposed to all types of media than women with no education, 43 percent compared to 3 percent, with no education, 43 percent compared to 3 percent, respectively. Similarly, 44 percent of women in the highest respectively. Similarly, 44 percent of women in the highest wealth index quintile have been exposed to all three media wealth index quintile have been exposed to all three media forms, while the corresponding proportion of women in forms, while the corresponding proportion of women in the lowest wealth index quintile is only 6 percent. Larger the lowest wealth index quintile is only 6 percent. Larger proportions of women are exposed to all types of media in proportions of women are exposed to all types of media in urban areas (21 percent) than in rural areas (14 percent). urban areas (21 percent) than in rural areas (14 percent). The data for men aged 15–29 living in Roma settlements The data for men aged 15–29 living in Roma settlements is is shown in table MT.1R.M. Some 31 percent of men shown in table MT.1R.M. Some 31 percent of men read a newspaper at least once a week, 77 percent listened read a newspaper at least once a week, 77 percent listened to the radio and 96 percent watched television. About 2 to the radio and 96 percent watched television. About 2 percent had no regular exposure to any of the three media percent had no regular exposure to any of the three media while 25 percent are exposed to all three types of media at while 25 percent are exposed to all three types of media at least on a weekly basis. least on a weekly basis. In total, 5 percent of men aged 15–19 from Roma In total, 5 percent of men aged 15–19 from Roma settlements have no regular exposure to any of the three settlements have no regular exposure to any of the three media, while only 20 percent are exposed to all three types media, while only 20 percent are exposed to all three types of media at least on a weekly basis. As with women, the of media at least on a weekly basis. As with women, the men living in households within the poorest quintile seem men living in households within the poorest quintile seem to have very low access to the printed media.to have very low access to the printed media. Table MT.1R.M: Exposure to mass media, Roma Settlements, 2010 Percentage of men age 15–29 years who are exposed to specific mass media on a weekly basis Percentage of men age 15–49 who: All three media at least once a week No media at least once a week Number of men age 15–29 years Read a newspaper at least once a week Listen to the radio at least once a week Watch television at least once a week Age  15–19 25.4 77.1 93.6 19.7 4.9 295 20–24 34.9 79.3 97.2 30.3 .5 293 25–29 33.6 75.5 97.5 25.4 .8 289 Area  Urban 37.3 77.9 97.3 30.4 1.1 598 Rural 18.4 76.0 93.6 14.0 4.1 279 Education  None 6.0 59.6 94.9 6.0 1.3 66 Primary 26.5 77.2 95.3 21.0 2.7 599 Secondary 51.4 82.5 98.6 41.2 .6 202 Wealth index quintile  Poorest 12.7 62.8 84.2 10.7 8.8 191 Second 17.8 76.4 98.5 12.4 .8 166 Middle 25.8 83.7 99.1 21.6 .0 172 Fourth 39.8 82.4 100.0 30.6 .0 185 Richest 62.8 82.6 100.0 52.5 .0 163 Total 31.3 77.3 96.1 25.1 2.1 877 MULTIPLE INDICATOR CLUSTER SURVEY 2010238 MONITORING THE SITUATION OF CHILDREN AND WOMEN 239 Use of Information/Communication Use of Information/Communication TechnologyTechnology The questions on computer and internet use were only The questions on computer and internet use were only put to 15–24 year old women and men. put to 15–24 year old women and men. As displayed in Table MT.2, 94 percent of young As displayed in Table MT.2, 94 percent of young women had ever used a computer, 91 percent had used women had ever used a computer, 91 percent had used a a computer during the last year and 82 percent used one computer during the last year and 82 percent used one at least once a week during the last month. Overall, 87 at least once a week during the last month. Overall, 87 percent of young women had ever used the internet, percent of young women had ever used the internet, while 85 percent had used the internet during the last while 85 percent had used the internet during the last year. The proportion of young women, who used the year. The proportion of young women, who used the internet more frequently, at least once a week during internet more frequently, at least once a week during the last month, was smaller — 76 percent. the last month, was smaller — 76 percent. Table MT.2: Use of computers and internet, Serbia, 2010 Percentage of young women age 15–24 who have ever used a computer, percentage who have used a computer during the last 12 months, and frequency of use during the last one month Percentage of women age 15–24 who have: Percentage of women age 15–24 who have: Number of women age 15–24 years Ever used a computer Used a computer during the last 12 months1 Used a computer at least once a week during the last one month Ever used the internet Used the internet during the last 12 months2 Used the internet at least once a week during the last one month Age  15–19 95.9 94.0 86.5 89.0 86.9 79.0 659 20–24 92.7 89.0 77.7 85.4 83.2 73.1 705 Region  Belgrade 97.5 95.3 91.8 95.4 94.3 91.6 321 Vojvodina 93.9 90.5 81.6 89.4 87.4 77.5 317 Sumadija and Western Serbia 92.7 88.7 78.6 83.2 80.3 67.1 392 Southern and Eastern Serbia 93.2 91.7 76.7 81.7 79.2 69.8 333 Area  Urban 97.2 96.2 90.0 94.0 92.6 87.1 814 Rural 89.9 84.3 70.0 77.0 73.7 59.4 549 Education  Primary 60.8 50.9 27.8 39.1 32.9 15.5 112 Secondary 96.3 93.6 82.1 87.7 85.5 74.5 789 Higher 100.0 98.7 96.1 99.0 97.9 94.2 457 Wealth index quintile  Poorest 74.4 65.3 41.7 51.8 47.5 28.9 199 Second 92.8 87.5 72.6 82.1 79.4 64.8 276 Middle 98.5 97.4 89.5 92.6 89.1 82.5 267 Fourth 98.8 98.7 94.1 96.7 96.5 89.8 287 Richest 99.9 99.1 97.2 99.7 98.7 96.1 334 Total 94.2 91.4 82.0 87.1 85.0 76.0 1364 1 MICS indicator MT.2 2 MICS indicator MT.3 MULTIPLE INDICATOR CLUSTER SURVEY 2010240 As expected, both computer and internet use during the As expected, both computer and internet use during the last 12 months is more widespread among 15–19 year old last 12 months is more widespread among 15–19 year old women. Use of a computer and the internet is strongly women. Use of a computer and the internet is strongly associated with residence, education and wealth. associated with residence, education and wealth. Only about half of the women with primary education Only about half of the women with primary education reported using a computer during the last year, while reported using a computer during the last year, while almost all of the women with higher education used a almost all of the women with higher education used a computer. Similarly higher utilisation of the internet computer. Similarly higher utilisation of the internet during the last year is observed among young women in during the last year is observed among young women in urban areas (93 percent) compared to those in rural areas urban areas (93 percent) compared to those in rural areas (74 percent). Use of the internet during the last year is (74 percent). Use of the internet during the last year is highest in Belgrade (94 percent) and lowest in Southern highest in Belgrade (94 percent) and lowest in Southern and Eastern Serbia (79 percent), while the proportion is and Eastern Serbia (79 percent), while the proportion is 99 percent for young women in the richest quintile, as 99 percent for young women in the richest quintile, as opposed to those living in the poorest quintile (48 percent).opposed to those living in the poorest quintile (48 percent). Almost the same proportion of young men as young Almost the same proportion of young men as young women had used a computer and the internet during the women had used a computer and the internet during the last year as shown in Table MT.2M. Overall, 93 percent of last year as shown in Table MT.2M. Overall, 93 percent of 15–24 year old men had used a computer while 86 percent 15–24 year old men had used a computer while 86 percent had used the internet at least once during the last year. had used the internet at least once during the last year. As displayed in the table MT.2M, for young men, the As displayed in the table MT.2M, for young men, the differentials in terms of background characteristics are differentials in terms of background characteristics are generally similar to those observed among young women. generally similar to those observed among young women. In total, 52 percent of young men in the poorest quintile In total, 52 percent of young men in the poorest quintile had used the internet during the last year compared to had used the internet during the last year compared to nearly universal access among young men in the richest nearly universal access among young men in the richest quintile (99 percent). Those differentials become even quintile (99 percent). Those differentials become even more marked, both for men and women, when the use more marked, both for men and women, when the use of a computer or the internet during the last month is of a computer or the internet during the last month is considered. Computer and internet use is connected to considered. Computer and internet use is connected to higher education, living standards and living in urban areas. higher education, living standards and living in urban areas. Table MT.2M: Use of computers and internet, Serbia, 2010 Percentage of young men age 15–24 who have ever used a computer. percentage who have used a computer during the last 12 months. and frequency of use during the last one month Percentage of men age 15–24 who have: Percentage of men age 15–24 who have: Number of men age 15–24 years Ever used a computer Used a computer during the last 12 months1 Used a computer at least once a week during the last one month Ever used the internet Used the internet during the last 12 months2 Used the internet at least once a week during the last one month Age  15–19 96.8 94.9 87.9 90.3 88.7 80.7 465 20–24 93.2 90.6 85.3 85.7 83.9 79.5 512 Region  Belgrade 97.4 95.2 93.6 95.4 95.0 93.4 192 Vojvodina 97.0 95.3 89.1 87.1 85.9 79.1 263 Sumadija and Western Serbia 92.7 89.6 82.0 87.3 83.5 77.1 280 Southern and Eastern Serbia 93.3 91.3 83.5 83.3 82.6 74.0 242 Area  Urban 97.5 96.4 92.2 93.7 92.1 87.3 556 Rural 91.6 87.7 79.1 80.2 78.3 70.6 422 Education  Primary 64.1 49.6 30.7 49.2 42.6 25.3 72 Secondary 96.6 94.9 88.4 88.2 86.4 79.8 680 Higher 100.0 100.0 99.3 100.0 100.0 99.1 224 Wealth index quintile  Poorest 79.3 69.6 48.7 55.7 52.2 34.8 145 Second 93.4 91.5 85.1 84.1 82.4 75.1 186 Middle 97.0 95.3 92.1 92.0 89.9 84.0 214 Fourth 99.6 99.5 96.1 96.6 95.8 92.8 217 Richest 100.0 99.7 98.2 100.0 98.9 98.2 215 Total 94.9 92.6 86.6 87.9 86.2 80.1 977 1 MICS indicator MT.2 2 MICS indicator MT.3 MONITORING THE SITUATION OF CHILDREN AND WOMEN 241 Use of Information/CommunicationUse of Information/Communication Technology in Roma SettlementsTechnology in Roma Settlements As displayed in Table MT.2R, 46 percent of 15–24 year old As displayed in Table MT.2R, 46 percent of 15–24 year old women from Roma settlements had ever used a computer, women from Roma settlements had ever used a computer, 39 percent had used a computer during the last year and 30 39 percent had used a computer during the last year and 30 percent had used one at least once a week during the last percent had used one at least once a week during the last month. Overall, 30 percent of women aged 15–24 had ever month. Overall, 30 percent of women aged 15–24 had ever used the internet, while 25 percent had used the internet used the internet, while 25 percent had used the internet during the last year. The proportion of young women who during the last year. The proportion of young women who had used the internet more frequently, at least once a week had used the internet more frequently, at least once a week during the last month, is smaller at 22 percent. during the last month, is smaller at 22 percent. One very positive finding is that both computer One very positive finding is that both computer and internet use during the last 12 months is more and internet use during the last 12 months is more widespread among 15–19 year old women than for widespread among 15–19 year old women than for among women aged between 20–24. Use of a computer among women aged between 20–24. Use of a computer and the internet is strongly associated with education and the internet is strongly associated with education and wealth. and wealth. Only 13 percent of women with no education reported Only 13 percent of women with no education reported using a computer during the last year, while 86 percent of using a computer during the last year, while 86 percent of women with secondary education had used a computer. women with secondary education had used a computer. Similarly higher utilisation of the internet is observed Similarly higher utilisation of the internet is observed among young women in urban areas (31 percent) compared among young women in urban areas (31 percent) compared to those in rural areas (13 percent). The proportion who to those in rural areas (13 percent). The proportion who had used the internet during the last year is 65 percent for had used the internet during the last year is 65 percent for young women in the richest quintile, as opposed to those young women in the richest quintile, as opposed to those living in the poorest quintile (only 3 percent).living in the poorest quintile (only 3 percent). Table MT.2R: Use of computers and internet, Roma Settlements, 2010 Percentage of young women age 15–24 who have ever used a computer, percentage who have used a computer during the last 12 months, and frequency of use during the last one month Percentage of women age 15–24 who have: Percentage of women age 15–24 who have: Number of women age 15–24 years Ever used a computer Used a computer during the last 12 months1 Used a computer at least once a week during the last one month Ever used the internet Used the internet during the last 12 months2 Used the internet at least once a week during the last one month Age  15–19 51.6 44.1 35.8 33.1 28.9 26.5 429 20–24 39.1 33.0 23.0 26.7 20.6 16.1 354 Area  Urban 55.0 47.3 35.7 38.1 31.2 27.2 526 Rural 27.5 22.1 18.5 14.1 12.8 10.7 256 Education  None 14.3 13.2 8.9 9.8 8.4 6.7 115 Primary 43.2 34.3 26.1 26.6 20.1 17.1 550 Secondary 89.2 85.5 66.7 64.4 62.0 55.2 110 Wealth index quintile  Poorest 15.1 8.8 4.3 5.9 3.0 .2 157 Second 29.0 21.0 15.7 11.9 9.9 7.3 162 Middle 37.8 30.5 19.4 24.1 20.5 15.6 158 Fourth 67.5 60.7 44.2 43.6 31.5 29.1 165 Richest 83.7 77.7 70.4 69.4 65.0 60.6 142 Total 46.0 39.1 30.0 30.2 25.2 21.8 783 1 MICS indicator MT.2 2 MICS indicator MT.3 MONITORING THE SITUATION OF CHILDREN AND WOMEN 241 MULTIPLE INDICATOR CLUSTER SURVEY 2010242 Usage of computer and internet during the last year among Usage of computer and internet during the last year among young men is much higher than among young women as young men is much higher than among young women as shown in Table MT.2R.M. Some 63 percent of 15–24 year shown in Table MT.2R.M. Some 63 percent of 15–24 year old men had used a computer, while 52 percent had used old men had used a computer, while 52 percent had used the internet during the last year. the internet during the last year. As displayed in the Table MT.2R.M, the differentials in As displayed in the Table MT.2R.M, the differentials in terms of background characteristics for young men are terms of background characteristics for young men are generally similar to those observed among young women. generally similar to those observed among young women. Some 15 percent of young men in the poorest quintile Some 15 percent of young men in the poorest quintile had used the internet during the last year compared to 84 had used the internet during the last year compared to 84 percent among young men in the richest quintile. Those percent among young men in the richest quintile. Those differentials become even more marked, both for men and differentials become even more marked, both for men and women, when the use of a computer or the internet during women, when the use of a computer or the internet during the last month is considered.the last month is considered. Table MT.2R.M: Use of computers and internet, Roma Settlements, 2010 Percentage of young men age 15–24 who have ever used a computer, percentage who have used a computer during the last 12 months, and frequency of use during the last one month Percentage of men age 15–24 who have: Percentage of men age 15–24 who have: Number of men age 15–24 yearsEver used a computer Used a computer during the last 12 months1 Used a computer at least once a week during the last one month Ever used the internet Used the internet during the last 12 months2 Used the internet at least once a week during the last one month Age  15–19 71.5 68.0 52.5 58.6 58.4 42.8 295 20–24 62.7 58.1 42.1 50.2 46.4 35.3 293 Area  Urban 74.6 70.9 54.9 63.8 61.4 46.7 399 Rural 51.3 46.5 31.3 34.5 33.6 23.0 189 Education  None (27.1) (27.1) (15.6) (25.4) (21.7) (14.6) 38 Primary 60.5 54.8 38.2 44.6 42.4 29.0 400 Secondary 94.8 93.9 78.9 87.4 87.4 71.8 146 Wealth index quintile  Poorest 27.9 23.2 11.8 16.1 14.9 9.0 130 Second 60.7 57.2 35.7 43.9 43.5 19.1 126 Middle 79.1 73.1 55.3 67.4 63.9 48.3 121 Fourth 80.1 76.1 68.4 71.0 66.5 52.7 113 Richest 97.9 96.4 75.5 83.5 83.5 77.6 98 Total 67.1 63.1 47.3 54.4 52.4 39.1 588 1 MICS indicator MT.2 2 MICS indicator MT.3 ( ) Figures that are based on 25–49 unweighted cases MULTIPLE INDICATOR CLUSTER SURVEY 2010242 MONITORING THE SITUATION OF CHILDREN AND WOMEN 243 It is well-known that individuals’ subjective perceptions It is well-known that individuals’ subjective perceptions of their incomes, health, living environments and the like, of their incomes, health, living environments and the like, play a significant role in their lives and can impact on their play a significant role in their lives and can impact on their perception of well-being, irrespective of objective conditions perception of well-being, irrespective of objective conditions such as actual income and physical health status. such as actual income and physical health status. In the 2010 Serbia MICS a set of questions were asked In the 2010 Serbia MICS a set of questions were asked of women and men between 15–24 years of age, to of women and men between 15–24 years of age, to understand how satisfied these young people are in understand how satisfied these young people are in different areas of their lives, such as their school, job, different areas of their lives, such as their school, job, income, friendships and living environment. Life income, friendships and living environment. Life satisfaction is a measure of an individual’s perceived satisfaction is a measure of an individual’s perceived level of well-being. Understanding young women and level of well-being. Understanding young women and young men’s satisfaction in different areas of their lives young men’s satisfaction in different areas of their lives can help to gain a comprehensive picture of young can help to gain a comprehensive picture of young people’s life situations.people’s life situations. A distinction can be made between life satisfaction and A distinction can be made between life satisfaction and happiness. In addition to the set of questions on life happiness. In addition to the set of questions on life satisfaction, the respondents in the 2010 Serbia MICS satisfaction, the respondents in the 2010 Serbia MICS were also asked a few simple questions about happiness were also asked a few simple questions about happiness and their perceptions of a better life. Happiness is a and their perceptions of a better life. Happiness is a fleeting emotion that can be affected by numerous factors, fleeting emotion that can be affected by numerous factors, including day-to-day factors like the weather, or a recent including day-to-day factors like the weather, or a recent death in the family. It is possible for a person to be satisfied death in the family. It is possible for a person to be satisfied with his/her job, income, family life, friends, and other with his/her job, income, family life, friends, and other aspects of his/her life, but still be unhappy. aspects of his/her life, but still be unhappy. To assist respondents in answering the set of questions on To assist respondents in answering the set of questions on happiness and life satisfaction they were shown a card with happiness and life satisfaction they were shown a card with smiling faces (and not so smiling faces) that corresponded smiling faces (and not so smiling faces) that corresponded XIVXIV SUBJECTIVE SUBJECTIVE WELL-BEINGWELL-BEING to the response categories (see the Questionnaires in to the response categories (see the Questionnaires in Appendix F). Appendix F). The indicators related to subjective well-being are as The indicators related to subjective well-being are as follows:follows:  Life satisfaction — the proportion of women and men Life satisfaction — the proportion of women and men aged between 15–24 years who are very or somewhat aged between 15–24 years who are very or somewhat satisfied with their family life, friendships, school, satisfied with their family life, friendships, school, current job, health, where they live, how they are current job, health, where they live, how they are treated by others, and how they looktreated by others, and how they look  Happiness — the proportion of women and men aged Happiness — the proportion of women and men aged between 15–24 years who are very or somewhat happybetween 15–24 years who are very or somewhat happy  Perception of a better life — the proportion of women Perception of a better life — the proportion of women and men aged between 15–24 years whose life and men aged between 15–24 years whose life improved during the last year, and who expect that improved during the last year, and who expect that their lives will be better after one yeartheir lives will be better after one year Respectively, Tables SW.1 and SW.1M show the proportion Respectively, Tables SW.1 and SW.1M show the proportion of young women and men who are very or somewhat of young women and men who are very or somewhat satisfied in selected domains. Of the different domains, satisfied in selected domains. Of the different domains, young women are most satisfied with their health (98 young women are most satisfied with their health (98 percent), their friendships (96 percent) and their family percent), their friendships (96 percent) and their family life (95 percent). The results for young men are similar; life (95 percent). The results for young men are similar; they are most satisfied with their health (99 percent), their they are most satisfied with their health (99 percent), their family life (97 percent) and their friendships (96 percent). family life (97 percent) and their friendships (96 percent). Among the domains, both young women and young men Among the domains, both young women and young men are least satisfied with their current income, with 71 are least satisfied with their current income, with 71 percent of young men and 78 percent of young women percent of young men and 78 percent of young women not having any income at all. not having any income at all. MULTIPLE INDICATOR CLUSTER SURVEY 2010244 Table SW.1: Domains of life satisfaction, Serbia, 2010 Percentage of women age 15–24 years who are very or somewhat satisfied in selected domains Percentage of women age 15–24 who are very or somewhat satisfied with selected domains: Percentage of women age 15–24 who: Number of women age 15–24 years Family life Friendships School Current job Health Living environment Treatment by others The way they look Current income Are not currently attending school Do not have a job Do not have any income Age  15–19 94.3 97.1 88.4 69.7 98.3 84.0 90.6 91.6 83.6 16.7 96.9 88.2 659 20–24 94.8 95.8 90.1 79.2 98.2 81.0 92.0 92.7 64.4 55.7 77.4 67.7 705 Region  Belgrade 94.2 98.1 89.4 75.0 97.7 87.0 93.3 94.8 62.7 29.2 82.1 78.4 321 Vojvodina 89.6 94.9 85.5 83.0 97.3 75.1 86.4 85.6 62.5 40.4 86.2 78.8 317 Sumadija and Western Serbia 98.8 97.6 91.9 76.5 99.3 85.1 93.2 95.0 81.2 35.9 87.3 78.2 392 Southern and Eastern Serbia 94.8 94.9 88.3 79.5 98.6 81.9 91.8 92.5 68.2 42.0 91.2 75.1 333 Area  Urban 94.9 97.5 91.3 78.6 98.4 87.7 92.3 92.9 71.8 28.0 86.8 79.2 814 Rural 94.1 94.8 84.2 77.3 98.2 74.7 89.8 91.1 66.3 49.9 86.8 75.2 549 Marital Status*  Currently married/in union 95.1 91.2 88.7 69.9 97.1 81.3 91.3 91.1 59.6 92.5 75.7 62.5 243 Never married/ in union 94.6 97.7 89.0 82.4 98.6 83.1 91.4 92.5 73.6 24.3 89.3 80.9 1109 Education  Primary 92.2 89.9 63.2 71.6 96.7 76.1 85.4 89.6 81.1 89.9 83.4 75.0 112 Secondary 94.7 95.7 88.2 76.7 98.2 81.2 90.3 91.8 67.7 41.6 84.3 74.5 789 Higher 95.6 99.2 90.8 85.9 98.8 86.0 94.5 93.5 69.2 14.8 91.8 83.4 457 Wealth index quintile  Poorest 89.0 92.2 67.8 78.9 98.1 70.2 83.4 88.0 60.8 69.5 86.3 77.9 199 Second 94.4 96.7 93.6 77.6 98.8 76.0 92.5 95.0 74.8 50.2 79.8 65.1 276 Middle 95.2 96.5 89.0 72.0 97.0 82.5 94.8 89.3 69.3 35.2 88.5 79.1 267 Fourth 95.0 96.9 88.4 76.0 98.0 87.5 90.7 93.9 67.0 27.6 85.4 81.2 287 Richest 97.3 98.3 91.8 89.4 99.1 90.7 92.7 93.1 68.7 15.7 92.7 83.5 334 Total 94.6 96.4 89.0 78.1 98.3 82.5 91.3 92.2 69.3 36.8 86.8 77.6 1364 * Disaggregation categories “Widowed”, “Divorced” and “Separated” are not shown in the table due to a small number of occurrences (less than 25 unweighted cases) MONITORING THE SITUATION OF CHILDREN AND WOMEN 245 Table SW.1M: Domains of life satisfaction, Serbia, 2010 Percentage of men age 15–24 years who are very or somewhat satisfied in selected domains Percentage of men age 15–24 who are very or somewhat satisfied with selected domains: Percentage of men age 15–24 who: Number of men age 15–24 years Family life Friendships School Current job Health Living environment Treatment by others The way they look Current income Are not currently attending school Do not have a job Do not have any income Age  15–19 97.4 97.0 87.3 74.4 99.1 88.5 93.9 91.3 57.5 22.1 92.5 88.1 465 20–24 96.6 94.1 92.9 77.7 98.6 83.3 91.5 94.2 61.1 70.5 58.3 55.8 512 Region  Belgrade 97.9 94.0 80.0 77.6 99.1 89.6 94.1 93.8 59.8 42.1 70.0 67.1 192 Vojvodina 93.2 93.9 88.2 72.2 97.9 75.8 87.2 87.4 57.7 49.6 71.9 68.7 263 Sumadija and Western Serbia 98.6 96.7 95.8 77.7 99.0 86.7 96.9 95.8 60.4 55.4 74.5 70.2 280 Southern and Eastern Serbia 98.4 96.9 90.8 84.2 99.4 92.5 92.5 94.6 65.2 40.3 81.3 78.2 242 Area  Urban 96.5 95.7 89.8 87.9 99.6 87.5 94.4 93.5 70.0 39.2 77.2 72.1 556 Rural 97.5 95.2 87.4 66.1 97.8 83.5 90.3 92.0 48.6 58.4 71.2 70.0 422 Marital Status*  Currently married/in union 94.7 91.1 95.7 69.5 98.8 84.7 84.4 96.6 60.2 90.3 30.8 31.0 75 Never married/ in union 97.4 95.8 88.9 80.0 98.8 85.8 93.5 92.5 60.9 43.8 78.4 74.7 900 Education  Primary 93.3 88.5 50.8 62.0 99.7 80.5 83.2 94.8 26.0 94.2 67.6 62.1 72 Secondary 96.5 97.0 87.1 76.7 98.7 85.8 92.7 92.9 61.6 52.0 71.5 68.0 680 Higher 99.6 93.1 93.2 94.2 98.8 87.9 95.4 92.0 78.7 18.3 86.5 83.7 224 Wealth index quintile  Poorest 92.5 92.6 93.1 60.0 99.2 83.6 85.1 92.1 31.2 69.6 75.7 75.2 145 Second 98.5 97.1 92.7 70.6 99.3 85.1 90.6 93.6 50.3 62.6 64.9 64.7 186 Middle 95.9 99.3 82.2 75.7 98.7 84.8 91.4 93.3 75.3 50.3 75.1 70.8 214 Fourth 97.4 94.2 88.6 79.6 98.7 85.9 97.5 93.6 73.9 33.8 79.1 74.0 217 Richest 99.2 93.3 91.3 98.0 98.3 88.7 95.9 91.5 60.7 30.4 77.3 71.5 215 Total 97.0 95.5 89.0 77.2 98.8 85.8 92.6 92.9 60.4 47.5 74.6 71.2 977 * Disaggregation category “Separated” is not shown in the table due to a small number of occurences (less than 25 unweighted cases) Tables SW.2 and SW.2M show the proportion of young Tables SW.2 and SW.2M show the proportion of young women and men with “life satisfaction”. “Life satisfaction” women and men with “life satisfaction”. “Life satisfaction” is defined as those who are very or somewhat satisfied with is defined as those who are very or somewhat satisfied with their family life, friendships, school, current job, health, their family life, friendships, school, current job, health, where they live, how they are treated by others, and how where they live, how they are treated by others, and how they look. In total, 67 percent of 15–24 year old women they look. In total, 67 percent of 15–24 year old women are satisfied with life. Overall, 77 percent of women living are satisfied with life. Overall, 77 percent of women living in the households within the richest quintile are satisfied in the households within the richest quintile are satisfied with their life, as opposed to only 48 percent of those from with their life, as opposed to only 48 percent of those from the poorest quintile. The proportion of women that are the poorest quintile. The proportion of women that are satisfied with life is somewhat higher in urban areas (70 satisfied with life is somewhat higher in urban areas (70 percent) than in rural areas (61 percent). percent) than in rural areas (61 percent). MULTIPLE INDICATOR CLUSTER SURVEY 2010246 The average life satisfaction score is the arithmetic mean The average life satisfaction score is the arithmetic mean of responses to questions included in the calculation of of responses to questions included in the calculation of life satisfaction. Lower scores indicate higher satisfaction life satisfaction. Lower scores indicate higher satisfaction levels. As Table SW.2 indicates, there is a strong relationship levels. As Table SW.2 indicates, there is a strong relationship between the average life satisfaction score and women’s between the average life satisfaction score and women’s socioeconomic status. socioeconomic status. According to the same table (SW.2), 93 percent of young According to the same table (SW.2), 93 percent of young women are very or somewhat happy. Women from the women are very or somewhat happy. Women from the poorest households seem to be less happy. Comparing poorest households seem to be less happy. Comparing 15–19 year old women to 20–24 year old women, the 15–19 year old women to 20–24 year old women, the proportion of women who are very or somewhat happy proportion of women who are very or somewhat happy is roughly the same, 94 and 93 percent, respectively. is roughly the same, 94 and 93 percent, respectively. Table SW.2: Life satisfaction and happiness, Serbia, 2010 Percentage of women age 15–24 years who are very or somewhat satisfied with their family life, friendships, school, current job, health, living environment, treatment by others, and the way they look, the average life satisfaction score, percentage of women with life satisfaction who are also very or somewhat satisfied with their income, and percentage of women age 15–24 years who are very or somewhat happy   Percentage of women with life satisfaction1 Average life satisfaction score Missing/ Cannot be calculated Women with life satisfaction who are very or somewhat satisfied with their income No income/ Cannot be calculated Percentage who are very or somewhat happy2 Number of women age 15–24 years Age  15–19 67.4 1.5 .0 59.3 88.2 93.9 659 20–24 66.2 1.5 .2 48.3 67.9 92.6 705 Region  Belgrade 71.4 1.5 .4 47.3 78.8 93.2 321 Vojvodina 56.3 1.6 .1 43.2 78.9 88.4 317 Sumadija and Western Serbia 73.2 1.5 .0 60.1 78.2 96.7 392 Southern and Eastern Serbia 64.8 1.5 .0 51.4 75.1 93.8 333 Area  Urban 70.4 1.5 .0 52.3 79.2 93.3 814 Rural 61.4 1.6 .3 49.7 75.5 93.1 549 Marital Status*  Currently married/in union 63.6 1.6 .7 46.8 63.1 91.4 243 Never married/in union 67.8 1.5 .0 53.5 80.9 93.8 1109 Education  Primary 51.5 1.7 .0 52.1 75.0 83.2 112 Secondary 65.2 1.5 .2 48.5 74.7 92.6 789 Higher 73.5 1.4 .0 57.8 83.4 97.4 457 Wealth index quintile  Poorest 48.0 1.7 .0 22.3 77.9 80.4 199 Second 66.1 1.5 .1 56.2 65.3 95.6 276 Middle 64.6 1.5 .0 61.3 79.1 94.3 267 Fourth 70.9 1.5 .4 47.0 81.7 94.7 287 Richest 76.8 1.4 .0 58.9 83.5 96.9 334 Total 66.8 1.5 .1 51.1 77.7 93.3 1364 1 MICS Indicator SW.1 2 MICS indicator SW.2 * Disaggregation categories “Widowed”, “Divorced” and “Separated” are not shown in the table due to a small number of occurrences (less than 25 unweighted cases) MONITORING THE SITUATION OF CHILDREN AND WOMEN 247 As shown in table SW.2M, 68 percent of young men are As shown in table SW.2M, 68 percent of young men are satisfied with life. The differentials in terms of background satisfied with life. The differentials in terms of background characteristics are generally similar to those observed in characteristics are generally similar to those observed in young women. Among men living in households within young women. Among men living in households within the richest quintile, 75 percent are satisfied with life, as the richest quintile, 75 percent are satisfied with life, as opposed to 60 percent from the poorest quintile. Among opposed to 60 percent from the poorest quintile. Among young men, the proportion that is satisfied with life is young men, the proportion that is satisfied with life is higher in urban areas (73 percent) than in rural areashigher in urban areas (73 percent) than in rural areas (62 percent). Differentials can also be observed by region. (62 percent). Differentials can also be observed by region. The lowest proportion of life satisfaction among both The lowest proportion of life satisfaction among both women and men is found in Vojvodina. women and men is found in Vojvodina. The proportion of young men who are very or somewhat The proportion of young men who are very or somewhat happy is similar to that of young women (92 percent, happy is similar to that of young women (92 percent, compared to 93 percent for women). The lowest percentage compared to 93 percent for women). The lowest percentage of young men who are very or somewhat happy is within the of young men who are very or somewhat happy is within the poorest quintile, among those with low level of education poorest quintile, among those with low level of education and among those who live in Vojvodina. and among those who live in Vojvodina. Table SW.2M: Life satisfaction and happiness, Serbia, 2010 Percentage of men age 15–24 years who are very or somewhat satisfied with their family life, friendships, school, current job, health, living environment, treatment by others, and the way they look, the average life satisfaction score, percentage of men with life satisfaction who are also very or somewhat satisfied with their income, and percentage of men age 15–24 years who are very or somewhat happy   Percentage of men with life satisfaction1 Average life satisfaction score Missing/ Cannot be calculated Men with life satisfaction who are very or somewhat satisfied with their income No income/ Cannot be calculated Percentage who are very or somewhat happy2 Number of men age 15–24 years Age  15–19 70.6 1.5 .0 46.3 88.1 94.0 465 20–24 66.0 1.5 .0 51.5 55.8 90.7 512 Region  Belgrade 69.5 1.4 .0 49.5 67.1 94.5 192 Vojvodina 55.8 1.6 .0 43.9 68.7 83.0 263 Sumadija and Western Serbia 72.0 1.5 .0 50.5 70.2 96.6 280 Southern and Eastern Serbia 76.3 1.4 .0 62.0 78.2 95.9 242 Area  Urban 73.0 1.4 .0 62.4 72.1 93.1 556 Rural 61.9 1.5 .0 35.9 70.0 91.3 422 Marital Status*  Currently married/in union 55.8 1.6 .0 45.8 31.0 92.0 75 Never married/in union 69.4 1.5 .0 52.0 74.7 92.3 900 Education  Primary 52.7 1.6 .0 17.5 62.1 84.6 72 Secondary 68.9 1.5 .0 50.8 68.0 92.6 680 Higher 71.5 1.4 .0 73.5 83.7 94.2 224 Wealth index quintile  Poorest 59.8 1.6 .0 20.7 75.2 84.0 145 Second 68.9 1.5 .0 46.3 64.7 93.3 186 Middle 66.9 1.5 .0 54.7 70.8 93.2 214 Fourth 67.4 1.5 .0 61.8 74.0 95.2 217 Richest 75.3 1.4 .0 57.7 71.5 93.3 215 Total 68.2 1.5 .0 50.5 71.2 92.3 977 1 MICS Indicator SW.1 2 MICS indicator SW.2 * Disaggregation category “Separated” is not shown in the table due to a small number of occurences (less than 25 unweighted cases) MULTIPLE INDICATOR CLUSTER SURVEY 2010248 In table SW.3, women’s perceptions of a better life are In table SW.3, women’s perceptions of a better life are shown. The proportion of young women who think that shown. The proportion of young women who think that their lives improved during the previous one year their lives improved during the previous one year andand believe that it will get better after one year is 43 percent. The believe that it will get better after one year is 43 percent. The corresponding indicator for young men, presented in table corresponding indicator for young men, presented in table SW.3M, is lower than that of young women (36 percent). SW.3M, is lower than that of young women (36 percent). Differences in the perception of a better life can be observed Differences in the perception of a better life can be observed by wealth quintiles: young women (poorest quintile) and by wealth quintiles: young women (poorest quintile) and men (poorest and second quintile) are less likely to think that men (poorest and second quintile) are less likely to think that their lives improved during the last one year their lives improved during the last one year andand that it will that it will get better after one year, than young women and men that get better after one year, than young women and men that live in households in the richest quintile.live in households in the richest quintile. Table SW.3: Perception of a better life, Serbia, 2010 Percentage of women age 15–24 years who think that their lives improved during the last one year and who expect that their lives will get better after one year Percentage of women who think that their life Number of women age 15–24 yearsImproved during the last one year Will get better after one year Both 1 Age 15–19 48.1 84.8 44.9 659 20–24 45.2 81.7 41.7 705 Region Belgrade 46.7 82.5 45.5 321 Vojvodina 47.6 75.4 41.7 317 Sumadija and Western Serbia 45.8 83.4 41.3 392 Southern and Eastern Serbia 46.4 91.1 44.9 333 Area Urban 49.2 84.8 45.5 814 Rural 42.7 80.8 40.0 549 Marital Status* Currently married/in union 45.3 74.0 40.6 243 Never married/in union 47.1 85.4 44.1 1109 Education Primary 32.3 68.9 27.5 112 Secondary 48.3 84.0 45.0 789 Higher 47.2 85.3 44.1 457 Wealth index quintile Poorest 30.6 75.9 28.4 199 Second 49.9 81.7 47.5 276 Middle 47.6 84.3 42.5 267 Fourth 46.0 84.9 42.9 287 Richest 52.9 86.5 49.4 334 Total 46.6 83.2 43.2 1364 1 MICS indicator SW.3 * Disaggregation categories “Widowed”, “Divorced” and “Separated” are not shown in the table due to a small number of occurrences (less than 25 unweighted cases) MONITORING THE SITUATION OF CHILDREN AND WOMEN 249 Table SW.3M: Perception of a better life, Serbia, 2010 Percentage of men age 15–24 years who think that their lives improved during the last one year and who expect that their lives will get better after one year Percentage of men who think that their life Number of men age 15–24 yearsImproved during the last one year Will get better after one year Both 1 Age  15–19 39.1 78.4 36.6 465 20–24 41.7 73.4 35.8 512 Region  Belgrade 47.3 74.9 42.1 192 Vojvodina 46.3 72.7 39.9 263 Sumadija and Western Serbia 34.7 76.3 30.6 280 Southern and Eastern Serbia 35.1 79.3 33.9 242 Area  Urban 44.7 76.2 40.1 556 Rural 34.9 75.3 30.9 422 Marital Status*  Currently married/in union 49.4 64.6 42.1 75 Never married/in union 39.6 76.6 35.6 900 Education  Primary 25.8 62.4 21.1 72 Secondary 40.8 75.6 36.0 680 Higher 44.2 81.0 41.6 224 Wealth index quintile  Poorest 29.9 66.8 26.1 145 Second 33.4 80.7 31.4 186 Middle 43.3 75.1 37.8 214 Fourth 41.9 79.2 38.1 217 Richest 49.3 74.7 43.5 215 Total 40.4 75.8 36.2 977 1 MICS indicator SW.3 * Disaggregation category “Separated” is not shown in the table due to a small number of occurences (less than 25 unweighted cases) MULTIPLE INDICATOR CLUSTER SURVEY 2010250 Subjective well-being in Roma SettlementsSubjective well-being in Roma Settlements Respectively, Tables SW.1R and SW.1R.M show the Respectively, Tables SW.1R and SW.1R.M show the proportion of young women and young men from proportion of young women and young men from Roma settlements who are very or somewhat satisfied Roma settlements who are very or somewhat satisfied in selected domains. Of the different domains, young in selected domains. Of the different domains, young women from Roma settlements are most satisfied with women from Roma settlements are most satisfied with their family life and with the way they look (93 percent) their family life and with the way they look (93 percent) and then with their health (92 percent). The results for and then with their health (92 percent). The results for young men are similar; they are most satisfied with the young men are similar; they are most satisfied with the way they look (95 percent), their health (94 percent) and way they look (95 percent), their health (94 percent) and their family life (91 percent). Among the domains, both their family life (91 percent). Among the domains, both young women and young men are least satisfied with young women and young men are least satisfied with their current income and current job, with 57 percent of their current income and current job, with 57 percent of young men and 59 percent of young women not having young men and 59 percent of young women not having any income at all. any income at all. Table SW.1R: Domains of life satisfaction, Roma Settlements, 2010 Percentage of women age 15–24 years who are very or somewhat satisfied in selected domains Percentage of women age 15–24 who are very or somewhat satisfied with selected domains: Percentage of women age 15–24 who: Number of women age 15–24 years Family life Friendships School Current job Health Living environment Treatment by others The way they look Current income Are not currently attending school Do not have a job Do not have any income Age  15–19 93.3 85.1 83.5 45.6 90.4 73.3 84.5 96.4 36.2 76.7 96.5 65.0 429 20–24 93.6 89.1 50.4 59.0 93.3 75.2 84.0 89.6 32.2 99.0 90.7 51.8 354 Area  Urban 94.2 87.4 80.3 51.9 91.4 73.9 83.1 92.7 30.5 85.8 92.7 62.3 526 Rural 91.8 85.9 87.5 66.4 92.4 74.5 86.7 94.7 39.8 88.8 96.3 52.4 256 Marital Status*  Currently married/in union 96.0 88.1 100.0 50.9 91.3 77.1 84.2 92.2 33.8 99.5 95.1 53.0 472 Separated (72.8) (78.4) (80.9) (30.1) (93.4) (62.6) (77.7) (93.6) (42.8) (87.2) (91.1) (47.3) 41 Never married/ in union 93.3 87.1 81.9 59.8 92.7 70.9 85.7 96.6 33.4 62.6 92.3 72.2 256 Education  None 94.7 83.6 . 69.9 95.4 67.2 77.1 92.2 24.1 100.0 96.9 61.4 115 Primary 92.7 87.2 76.7 43.9 90.2 75.7 84.6 92.5 31.1 92.9 94.5 59.6 550 Secondary 95.4 87.9 86.7 74.1 94.8 73.3 88.6 97.9 48.6 48.8 87.1 56.2 110 Wealth index quintile  Poorest 89.0 80.7 66.5 36.6 90.6 52.2 74.3 88.7 18.9 91.7 93.7 64.0 157 Second 93.4 88.5 96.4 53.3 92.2 69.2 78.8 94.3 28.6 95.4 96.6 51.7 162 Middle 94.6 89.7 82.3 43.6 89.3 86.2 88.0 96.7 15.5 88.6 96.3 63.0 158 Fourth 95.5 87.3 100.0 56.9 95.8 77.6 90.1 95.3 50.4 84.3 92.1 53.1 165 Richest 94.5 88.4 73.2 71.0 90.2 86.7 90.7 91.2 56.0 72.4 90.3 64.4 142 Total 93.4 86.9 82.3 54.7 91.7 74.1 84.3 93.3 34.1 86.8 93.9 59.0 783 ( ) Figures that are based on 25–49 unweighted cases * Disaggregation categories “Widowed” and “Divorced” are not shown in the table due to a small number of occurrences (less than 25 unweighted cases) MULTIPLE INDICATOR CLUSTER SURVEY 2010250 MONITORING THE SITUATION OF CHILDREN AND WOMEN 251 Table SW.1R.M: Domains of life satisfaction, Roma Settlements, 2010 Percentage of men age 15–24 years who are very or somewhat satisfied in selected domains Percentage of men age 15–24 who are very or somewhat satisfied with selected domains: Percentage of men age 15–24 who: Number of men age 15–24 years Family life Friendships School Current job Health Living environment Treatment by others The way they look Current income Are not currently attending school Do not have a job Do not have any income Age  15–19 88.6 88.8 68.6 75.1 94.2 71.5 86.5 94.9 47.2 70.7 80.4 66.3 295 20–24 93.1 90.8 81.4 50.5 93.8 66.0 87.9 95.9 32.4 95.0 65.3 47.9 293 Area Urban 90.7 88.8 72.4 61.4 92.1 69.5 86.3 94.0 36.2 80.0 70.0 55.7 399 Rural 91.0 91.8 63.2 53.4 97.9 67.1 89.1 98.3 43.2 88.8 79.0 60.2 189 Marital Status*  Currently married/ in union 95.8 89.4 100.0 56.7 93.1 71.8 88.8 96.2 38.6 98.6 64.5 47.5 246 Never married/ in union 87.3 92.2 72.2 66.8 94.3 66.8 86.3 94.4 39.4 70.2 79.4 65.4 315 Education  None (96.7) (76.0) na (73.8) (90.5) (55.0) (86.8) (97.0) (19.0) (100.0) (82.2) (54.3) 38 Primary 90.2 89.6 61.0 59.9 93.8 69.8 87.5 94.5 39.7 94.1 71.0 53.7 400 Secondary 90.6 96.1 75.2 55.0 95.3 69.1 86.9 97.3 39.5 50.2 74.9 65.9 146 Wealth index quintile  Poorest 83.6 84.1 44.8 45.7 92.1 43.5 78.5 91.3 25.7 89.0 76.8 60.2 130 Second 93.4 90.0 100.0 43.3 90.1 63.4 77.7 96.8 23.7 89.1 74.7 65.7 126 Middle 87.5 90.8 60.8 61.1 95.0 75.1 91.1 96.6 43.9 74.4 76.8 61.0 121 Fourth 94.6 91.2 95.3 77.9 94.6 81.0 94.0 93.4 47.5 85.3 67.8 41.4 113 Richest 97.0 94.1 64.5 65.7 99.5 87.2 98.4 100.0 47.4 74.2 66.3 55.6 98 Total 90.8 89.8 70.5 59.4 94.0 68.8 87.2 95.4 38.3 82.8 72.9 57.1 588 ( ) Figures that are based on 25–49 unweighted cases  * Disaggregation categories “Widowed”, “Divorced” and “Separated” are not shown in the table due to a small number of occurrences (less than 25 unweighted cases) According to the Table SW.2R, 59 percent of young women According to the Table SW.2R, 59 percent of young women are satisfied with life. Overall, 61 percent of women living in are satisfied with life. Overall, 61 percent of women living in the households within the richest quintile are satisfied with the households within the richest quintile are satisfied with life which is almost double the rate of the poorest quintile, life which is almost double the rate of the poorest quintile, where only 37 percent are satisfied with life. The proportion where only 37 percent are satisfied with life. The proportion of women satisfied with life in rural areas is 61 percent.of women satisfied with life in rural areas is 61 percent. According to the same table (SW.2R), 87 percent of According to the same table (SW.2R), 87 percent of young women from Roma settlements are very or young women from Roma settlements are very or somewhat happy. For this indicator, differences by somewhat happy. For this indicator, differences by wealth quintiles can also be observed ranging from wealth quintiles can also be observed ranging from 75 percent in the poorest quintile to 93 percent in the 75 percent in the poorest quintile to 93 percent in the richest quintile. Comparing 15–19 year old women to richest quintile. Comparing 15–19 year old women to 20–24 year old women, the proportion of women who 20–24 year old women, the proportion of women who are very or somewhat happy is the same, 87 percent. are very or somewhat happy is the same, 87 percent. Unlike the overall population in Serbia it seems that Unlike the overall population in Serbia it seems that education levels do not influence the happiness of education levels do not influence the happiness of young Roma women.young Roma women. MONITORING THE SITUATION OF CHILDREN AND WOMEN 251 MULTIPLE INDICATOR CLUSTER SURVEY 2010252 Table SW.2R: Life satisfaction and happiness, Roma Settlements, 2010 Percentage of women age 15–24 years who are very or somewhat satisfied with their family life, friendships, school, current job, health, living environment, treatment by others, and the way they look, the average life satisfaction score, percentage of women with life satisfaction who are also very or somewhat satisfied with their income, and percentage of women age 15–24 years who are very or somewhat happy   Percentage of women with life satisfaction1 Average life satisfaction score Missing/ Cannot be calculated Women with life satisfaction who are very or somewhat satisfied with their income No income/ Cannot be calculated Percentage who are very or somewhat happy2 Number of women age 15–24 years Age  15–19 56.5 1.6 .4 30.5 65.4 87.4 429 20–24 61.4 1.6 .1 23.0 51.9 87.2 354 Area  Urban 57.5 1.6 .3 23.3 62.6 87.8 526 Rural 61.2 1.6 .2 31.6 52.6 86.2 256 Marital Status*  Currently married/in union 63.3 1.6 .1 28.1 53.1 89.9 472 Separated (40.3) (1.9) (0.0) (16.5) (47.3) (66.0) 41 Never married/in union 54.6 1.6 .6 25.9 72.9 87.6 256 Education  None 57.6 1.6 .4 21.6 61.7 88.9 115 Primary 59.0 1.6 .3 23.1 59.9 85.3 550 Secondary 56.9 1.5 .0 37.5 56.2 95.9 110 Wealth index quintile  Poorest 37.3 1.9 .0 9.0 64.0 75.2 157 Second 56.9 1.6 .3 21.6 52.0 86.7 162 Middle 71.4 1.5 .6 11.1 63.5 90.0 158 Fourth 66.8 1.5 .4 41.8 53.5 92.2 165 Richest 60.9 1.5 .0 48.0 64.4 92.5 142 Total 58.7 1.6 .3 26.5 59.3 87.3 783 1 MICS Indicator SW.1 2 MICS indicator SW.2 ( ) Figures that are based on 25–49 unweighted cases * Disaggregation categories “Widowed” and “Divorced” are not shown in the table due to a small number of occurrences (less than 25 unweighted cases) As shown in table SW.2R.M, 53 percent of young men As shown in table SW.2R.M, 53 percent of young men are satisfied with life. For young men, the differentials in are satisfied with life. For young men, the differentials in terms of background characteristics are generally similar terms of background characteristics are generally similar to those observed for young women. Among men from to those observed for young women. Among men from Roma settlements living in households within the richest Roma settlements living in households within the richest quintile, 66 percent are satisfied with life, while only 31 quintile, 66 percent are satisfied with life, while only 31 percent from the poorest quintile are. Among young men, percent from the poorest quintile are. Among young men, the proportion satisfied with life is higher in rural areas the proportion satisfied with life is higher in rural areas (56 percent) than in urban areas (52 percent). (56 percent) than in urban areas (52 percent). The proportion of young men who are very or somewhat The proportion of young men who are very or somewhat happy is equal to that of young women (87 percent). happy is equal to that of young women (87 percent). MULTIPLE INDICATOR CLUSTER SURVEY 2010252 MONITORING THE SITUATION OF CHILDREN AND WOMEN 253 Table SW.2R.M: Life satisfaction and happiness, Roma Settlements, 2010 Percentage of men age 15–24 years who are very or somewhat satisfied with their family life, friendships, school, current job, health, living environment, treatment by others, and the way they look, the average life satisfaction score, percentage of men with life satisfaction who are also very or somewhat satisfied with their income, and percentage of men age 15–24 years who are very or somewhat happy   Percentage of men with life satisfaction1 Average life satisfaction score Missing/ Cannot be calculated Men with life satisfaction who are very or somewhat satisfied with their income No income/ Cannot be calculated Percentage who are very or somewhat happy2 Number of men age 15–24 years Age  15–19 58.3 1.6 .0 36.3 66.3 89.1 295 20–24 47.9 1.7 .0 21.8 47.9 84.3 293 Area  Urban 51.6 1.7 .0 25.6 55.7 84.6 399 Rural 56.3 1.5 .0 32.2 60.2 91.2 189 Marital Status*  Currently married/in union 53.7 1.6 .0 23.1 47.5 91.2 246 Never married/in union 54.3 1.7 .0 34.1 65.4 86.1 315 Education  None (41.9) (1.8) (.0) (16.0) (54.3) (67.2) 38 Primary 54.5 1.6 .0 26.8 53.7 87.1 400 Secondary 53.3 1.7 .0 34.0 65.9 90.5 146 Wealth index quintile  Poorest 31.1 1.9 .0 15.3 60.2 72.9 130 Second 51.2 1.6 .0 16.2 65.7 90.3 126 Middle 59.2 1.7 .0 28.4 61.0 88.6 121 Fourth 62.9 1.4 .0 39.1 41.4 89.0 113 Richest 66.1 1.5 .0 34.8 55.6 95.6 98 Total 53.1 1.6 .0 27.5 57.1 86.7 588 1 MICS Indicator SW.1 2 MICS indicator SW.2 ( ) Figures that are based on 25–49 unweighted cases * Disaggregation categories “Widowed” and “Divorced” and “Separated” are not shown in the table due to a small number of occurrences (less than 25 unweighted cases) The same proportion (26 percent) of young women and The same proportion (26 percent) of young women and men think that their lives improved during the last one year men think that their lives improved during the last one year andand think that it will get better after one year (respectively, think that it will get better after one year (respectively, Table SW.3R and Table SW.3R.M). Differences in the Table SW.3R and Table SW.3R.M). Differences in the perception of a better life can be observed by wealth perception of a better life can be observed by wealth quintiles: young women and men that live in households quintiles: young women and men that live in households within the poorest quintile are less likely to think that within the poorest quintile are less likely to think that their lives improved during the last year their lives improved during the last year andand that it will get that it will get better after one year, than young women and men within better after one year, than young women and men within the richest quintile. Only 14 percent of young men (21 the richest quintile. Only 14 percent of young men (21 percent of young women) from the poorest quintile think percent of young women) from the poorest quintile think that their lives improved during the last year that their lives improved during the last year andand that it will that it will get better after one year, compared to 33 percent of men get better after one year, compared to 33 percent of men (41 percent of women) from the richest quintile. (41 percent of women) from the richest quintile. MONITORING THE SITUATION OF CHILDREN AND WOMEN 253 MULTIPLE INDICATOR CLUSTER SURVEY 2010254 Table SW.3R: Perception of a better life, Roma Settlements, 2010 Percentage of women age 15–24 years who think that their lives improved during the last one year and who expect that their lives will get better after one year Percentage of women who think that their life Number of women age 15–24 years Improved during the last one year Will get better after one year Both1 Age  15–19 28.2 79.5 25.5 429 20–24 28.1 82.1 27.0 354 Area  Urban 27.9 80.8 25.9 526 Rural 28.8 80.3 26.7 256 Marital Status*  Currently married/ in union 32.1 83.8 30.1 472 Separated (15.7) (71.7) (12.8) 41 Never married/ in union 24.1 76.4 22.1 256 Education  None 20.8 81.0 20.8 115 Primary 28.4 81.0 25.5 550 Secondary 37.1 84.2 37.1 110 Wealth index quintile  Poorest 22.1 82.4 20.9 157 Second 23.2 85.8 23.2 162 Middle 28.4 69.8 24.5 158 Fourth 27.5 79.4 22.9 165 Richest 41.2 86.4 41.2 142 Total 28.2 80.7 26.2 783 1 MICS indicator SW.3 ( ) Figures that are based on 25–49 unweighted cases * Disaggregation categories “Widowed” and “Divorced” are not shown in the table due to a small number of occurrences (less than 25 unweighted cases) Table SW.3R.M: Perception of a better life, Roma Settlements, 2010 Percentage of men age 15–24 years who think that their lives improved during the last one year and who expect that their lives will get better after one year Percentage of men who think that their life Number of men age 15–24 years Improved during the last one year Will get better after one year Both1 Age  15–19 26.6 76.2 24.4 295 20–24 27.6 78.7 26.7 293 Area  Urban 26.5 75.6 25.4 399 Rural 28.4 81.4 25.9 189 Marital Status*  Currently married/ in union 27.7 80.4 26.6 246 Never married/ in union 27.2 75.4 25.2 315 Education  None (12.4) (77.0) (10.2) 38 Primary 26.4 79.2 24.6 400 Secondary 32.5 72.1 31.7 146 Wealth index quintile  Poorest 16.4 69.1 13.8 130 Second 20.9 78.7 19.2 126 Middle 29.5 73.4 27.2 121 Fourth 38.5 82.0 38.0 113 Richest 33.0 86.9 33.0 98 Total 27.1 77.5 25.5 588 1 MICS indicator SW.3 ( ) Figures that are based on 25–49 unweighted cases * Disaggregation categories “Widowed”, “Divorced” and “Separated” are not shown in the table due to a small number of occurrences (less than 25 unweighted cases) MULTIPLE INDICATOR CLUSTER SURVEY 2010254 APPENDICESAPPENDICES MONITORING THE SITUATION OF CHILDREN AND WOMEN 257 The major features of the sample design are described The major features of the sample design are described in this appendix. Sample design features include in this appendix. Sample design features include the target sample size, sample allocation, sampling the target sample size, sample allocation, sampling frame and listing, choice of domains, sampling stages, frame and listing, choice of domains, sampling stages, stratification, and the calculation of sample weights. stratification, and the calculation of sample weights. The primary objective of the sample design for the The primary objective of the sample design for the Serbia Multiple Indicator Cluster Survey was to produce Serbia Multiple Indicator Cluster Survey was to produce statistically reliable estimates of most indicators, at the statistically reliable estimates of most indicators, at the national level, and for 4 regions: Belgrade, Vojvodina, national level, and for 4 regions: Belgrade, Vojvodina, Sumadija and Western Serbia and Southern and Eastern Sumadija and Western Serbia and Southern and Eastern Serbia, for urban and rural areas, of the country. Serbia, for urban and rural areas, of the country. A stratified, two-stage random sampling approach was A stratified, two-stage random sampling approach was used for the selection of the survey sample. used for the selection of the survey sample. Sample Size and Sample AllocationSample Size and Sample Allocation The target sample size for the Serbia MICS4 was The target sample size for the Serbia MICS4 was calculated as 6800 households and 400 enumeration calculated as 6800 households and 400 enumeration areas, considering the proposed formula and budget areas, considering the proposed formula and budget available. For the calculation of the sample size, the key available. For the calculation of the sample size, the key indicator used was the percentage of children aged 0–4 indicator used was the percentage of children aged 0–4 years who had had Acute Respiratory infections. The years who had had Acute Respiratory infections. The following formula was used to estimate the required following formula was used to estimate the required sample size for this indicator:sample size for this indicator: n n = = [4([4(r)(1–)(1–r)()( f )(1.15)])(1.15)] [(0.12[(0.12r)2(p)()(ñ)])] wherewhere n is the required sample size, expressed as the is the required sample size, expressed as the number of householdsnumber of households 4 is a factor to achieve the 95 percent level of is a factor to achieve the 95 percent level of confidenceconfidence r is the predicted or anticipated value of the indicator, is the predicted or anticipated value of the indicator, expressed in the form of a proportionexpressed in the form of a proportion 1.151.15 is the factor necessary to raise the sample size by 15 is the factor necessary to raise the sample size by 15 per cent for the expected non-response per cent for the expected non-response Appendix A Appendix A Sample Design for the Serbia SampleSample Design for the Serbia Sample f is the shortened symbol for is the shortened symbol for deffdeff (design effect) (design effect) 0.12r0.12r is the margin of error to be tolerated at the 95 is the margin of error to be tolerated at the 95 percent level of confidence, defined as 12 per cent percent level of confidence, defined as 12 per cent of of r (relative margin of error of (relative margin of error of r) p is the proportion of the total population upon which is the proportion of the total population upon which the indicator, the indicator, r, is based, is based ñ is the average household size (number of persons is the average household size (number of persons per household).per household). For the calculation, For the calculation, r (percentage of children aged 0–4 years (percentage of children aged 0–4 years who had had Acute Respiratory infections) was assumed to who had had Acute Respiratory infections) was assumed to be 12 percent. The value of be 12 percent. The value of deffdeff (design effect) was taken as (design effect) was taken as 1.5 based on estimates from previous surveys, 1.5 based on estimates from previous surveys, p (percentage (percentage of children aged 0–4 years in the total population) was of children aged 0–4 years in the total population) was taken as 5.1 percent, taken as 5.1 percent, ñ ñ (average household size) was taken as (average household size) was taken as 3, and the response rate is assumed to be 85%. 3, and the response rate is assumed to be 85%. The resulting number of households from this exercise was The resulting number of households from this exercise was about 23000 households, which is the sample size needed about 23000 households, which is the sample size needed to provide a large number of children under 5 (about 3500) to provide a large number of children under 5 (about 3500) for drawing reliable conclusions. Therefore, in order to for drawing reliable conclusions. Therefore, in order to reduce the number of households in the sample, but not to reduce the number of households in the sample, but not to lose estimation reliability, the stratification of the sample lose estimation reliability, the stratification of the sample into categories with and without children aged 0–4 years into categories with and without children aged 0–4 years was needed. The required number of households in each was needed. The required number of households in each category was obtained supposing an overall sample of 6800 category was obtained supposing an overall sample of 6800 households, 400 clusters and same number of households households, 400 clusters and same number of households with children under 5 per cluster. Assuming one child with children under 5 per cluster. Assuming one child under 5 per household and considering the required under 5 per household and considering the required number of sample children, the total sample size was number of sample children, the total sample size was calculated as 3600 (9 per cluster) households with children calculated as 3600 (9 per cluster) households with children under 5 and 3200 (8 per cluster) of households without under 5 and 3200 (8 per cluster) of households without children under 5. Thus, the overall number of households children under 5. Thus, the overall number of households to be selected per cluster was determined as 17 households. to be selected per cluster was determined as 17 households. The final target number of sample households with The final target number of sample households with children per cluster was increased to 10 (12 for Belgrade children per cluster was increased to 10 (12 for Belgrade region) in order to compensate for sample clusters with less region) in order to compensate for sample clusters with less households with children found in the listing.households with children found in the listing. Stratification of enumeration areas for Serbia was done Stratification of enumeration areas for Serbia was done according to type of settlement (urban and rural), and 25 according to type of settlement (urban and rural), and 25 Areas (Belgrade, West Bačka, South Banat, South Bačka, Areas (Belgrade, West Bačka, South Banat, South Bačka, North Banat, North Bačka, Central Banat, Srem, Zlatibor, North Banat, North Bačka, Central Banat, Srem, Zlatibor, MULTIPLE INDICATOR CLUSTER SURVEY 2010258 Kolubara, Mačva, Moravica, Pomoravlje, Rasina, Raška, Kolubara, Mačva, Moravica, Pomoravlje, Rasina, Raška, Šumadija, Bor, Braničevo, Zaječar, Jablanica, Nišava, Pirot, Šumadija, Bor, Braničevo, Zaječar, Jablanica, Nišava, Pirot, Danube, Pčinja, and Toplica).Danube, Pčinja, and Toplica). A proportional allocation of the sample based on the A proportional allocation of the sample based on the number of households in the urban and rural domains of number of households in the urban and rural domains of the 25 Areas was slightly adjusted. At the level of Serbia, the 25 Areas was slightly adjusted. At the level of Serbia, the number of enumeration areas for the rural domain the number of enumeration areas for the rural domain was reduced by 10 enumeration areas and allocated to the was reduced by 10 enumeration areas and allocated to the urban domain, where the non-response rate was expected urban domain, where the non-response rate was expected to be higher (about 20%). The table below shows the to be higher (about 20%). The table below shows the allocation of clusters to the sampling strata.allocation of clusters to the sampling strata. Table SD.1:Table SD.1: Allocation of Sample Clusters (Primary Sampling Units) to Sampling Strata Area Number of households (Census 2002) Number of Sample Clusters Total Urban Rural Total Urban Rural Belgrade 577511 481939 95572 93 77 16 West Backa 74726 38494 36232 11 6 5 South Banat 107045 61691 45354 17 10 7 South Backa 208593 143949 64644 34 24 10 North Banat 61454 37911 23543 9 6 3 North Backa 74768 46662 28106 11 7 4 Central Banat 74120 36173 37947 11 6 5 Srem 111463 48128 63335 18 8 10 Zlatibor 98884 49571 49313 17 9 8 Kolubara 63539 26499 37040 9 4 5 Macva 105181 31450 73731 16 5 11 Moravica 75244 39549 35695 12 7 5 Pomoravlje 75986 34902 41084 11 5 6 Rasina 82026 31756 50270 13 5 8 Raska 89122 45656 43466 15 8 7 Sumadija 102416 66296 36120 16 11 5 Bor 51538 28960 22578 8 5 3 Branicevo 63659 24425 39234 10 4 6 Zajecar 47564 24859 22705 7 4 3 Jablanica 74369 32232 42137 12 6 6 Nisava 131794 73801 57993 20 12 8 Pirot 38742 20811 17931 5 3 2 Danube 67989 36421 31568 11 6 5 Pcinja 65374 29570 35804 9 5 4 Toplica 35415 15701 19714 5 3 2 Total 2558522 1507406 1051116 400 246 154 MONITORING THE SITUATION OF CHILDREN AND WOMEN 259 Sampling Frame and Selection of ClustersSampling Frame and Selection of Clusters The 2002 Serbian Population Census frame was used for The 2002 Serbian Population Census frame was used for the selection of clusters. Census enumeration areas were the selection of clusters. Census enumeration areas were defined as primary sampling units (PSUs), and were selected defined as primary sampling units (PSUs), and were selected from each of the sampling strata by using a systematic from each of the sampling strata by using a systematic pps (probability proportional to size) sampling procedure, pps (probability proportional to size) sampling procedure, based on the estimated sizes (number of households) of the based on the estimated sizes (number of households) of the enumeration areas from the 2002 Population Census. The enumeration areas from the 2002 Population Census. The first stage of sampling was thus completed by selecting the first stage of sampling was thus completed by selecting the required number of enumeration areas from each of the 25 required number of enumeration areas from each of the 25 strata (Areas), by urban and rural domains separately.strata (Areas), by urban and rural domains separately. Listing ActivitiesListing Activities Since the sampling frame (the 2002 Population Census) Since the sampling frame (the 2002 Population Census) was not up-to-date, a new listing of households was was not up-to-date, a new listing of households was conducted in all the sample enumeration areas prior conducted in all the sample enumeration areas prior to the selection of households. For this purpose, listing to the selection of households. For this purpose, listing teams were formed, who visited each enumeration area, teams were formed, who visited each enumeration area, and listed the occupied households. The Statistical and listed the occupied households. The Statistical Office of the Republic of Serbia was responsible for Office of the Republic of Serbia was responsible for updating the household lists. Regional Offices formed updating the household lists. Regional Offices formed the teams responsible for listing and fieldwork. For each the teams responsible for listing and fieldwork. For each team, the list of all households in the selected cluster team, the list of all households in the selected cluster from the Census 2002 was provided. The interviewers’ from the Census 2002 was provided. The interviewers’ task was to go to the addresses listed and to mark any task was to go to the addresses listed and to mark any change that had happened, e.g. the dwelling didn’t exist change that had happened, e.g. the dwelling didn’t exist any more, the household had moved away from the any more, the household had moved away from the dwelling and another household was living there, and dwelling and another household was living there, and to note the number of children under five living in the to note the number of children under five living in the household. The listing process was performed during household. The listing process was performed during June and July 2010.June and July 2010. Selection of HouseholdsSelection of Households Updated lists of households were prepared by the listing Updated lists of households were prepared by the listing teams in the field for each sample enumeration area and teams in the field for each sample enumeration area and sent to the Statistical Office of the Republic of Serbia. sent to the Statistical Office of the Republic of Serbia. Afterwards, the updated lists of the households in the Afterwards, the updated lists of the households in the enumeration areas were classified into two categories: enumeration areas were classified into two categories: households with children under 5 and households without households with children under 5 and households without children. According to the number of listed households for children. According to the number of listed households for each category per enumeration area and the desired sample each category per enumeration area and the desired sample size of 3600 households with children under 5, a different size of 3600 households with children under 5, a different number of households to be selected from each category number of households to be selected from each category in the sample enumeration areas was determined. The in the sample enumeration areas was determined. The number of households with children under 5 per cluster was number of households with children under 5 per cluster was calculated as 10, excluding clusters from the Belgrade region, calculated as 10, excluding clusters from the Belgrade region, where 12 households with children under 5 were assigned. where 12 households with children under 5 were assigned. In the case of clusters with less than 10 (12 for Belgrade In the case of clusters with less than 10 (12 for Belgrade region) updated households with children under 5, all of region) updated households with children under 5, all of these households were included in the sample. The number these households were included in the sample. The number of households without children under 5 was obtained as the of households without children under 5 was obtained as the difference between the overall number of sample households difference between the overall number of sample households per cluster (17) and the number of households with per cluster (17) and the number of households with children under 5 allocated in the cluster. The households children under 5 allocated in the cluster. The households from both categories were selected systematically with from both categories were selected systematically with equal probabilities. During the data collection, another 85 equal probabilities. During the data collection, another 85 households (50 with children under-5 and 35 households households (50 with children under-5 and 35 households without children under-5) were included in the sample, in without children under-5) were included in the sample, in the case when interviewers identified that two households the case when interviewers identified that two households were living in the dwelling, instead of only the one listed.were living in the dwelling, instead of only the one listed. Calculation of Sample WeightsCalculation of Sample Weights The Serbia Multiple Indicator Cluster Survey sample is not The Serbia Multiple Indicator Cluster Survey sample is not self-weighting, due to disproportional allocation of the sample self-weighting, due to disproportional allocation of the sample to the strata, categories of households (with/without children to the strata, categories of households (with/without children under 5) and the final non-response. In order to obtain under 5) and the final non-response. In order to obtain representative results for Serbia, sample weights were used. representative results for Serbia, sample weights were used. The major component of the weight is the reciprocal value The major component of the weight is the reciprocal value of the sampling fraction employed in selecting the number of the sampling fraction employed in selecting the number of sample households in a particular sampling stratum (h), of sample households in a particular sampling stratum (h), from PSU (i) within category (c):from PSU (i) within category (c): Whichic= = 1 fhichic The term The term fhichic, the sampling fraction for the , the sampling fraction for the c-thc-th category category within the within the i-thi-th sample PSU in the sample PSU in the h-thh-th stratum, is the stratum, is the product of the probabilities of selection at every stage in product of the probabilities of selection at every stage in each sampling stratum:each sampling stratum: MULTIPLE INDICATOR CLUSTER SURVEY 2010260 fhic hic = = p1hihi x p2hichic where where pshicshic is the probability of selection of the sampling is the probability of selection of the sampling unit at each stage unit at each stage s=(1,2)s=(1,2) for the sample households in for the sample households in category category c of the of the i-thi-th sample PSU in the sample PSU in the h-thh-th sampling sampling stratum.stratum. Since the estimated number of households in each Since the estimated number of households in each enumeration area (PSU) in the sampling frame used enumeration area (PSU) in the sampling frame used for the first stage selection and the updated number of for the first stage selection and the updated number of households in the enumeration area from the listing were households in the enumeration area from the listing were different, individual sampling fractions for households in different, individual sampling fractions for households in each sample enumeration area (cluster) by second stage each sample enumeration area (cluster) by second stage stratum (with/without children) were calculated. The stratum (with/without children) were calculated. The sampling fractions for households in each enumeration sampling fractions for households in each enumeration area (cluster) and second stage stratum therefore area (cluster) and second stage stratum therefore included the first stage probability (included the first stage probability (p1hi1hi) of selection of ) of selection of the enumeration area in that particular sampling stratum the enumeration area in that particular sampling stratum and the second stage probability (and the second stage probability (p2hic2hic) of selection of a ) of selection of a household in the sample enumeration area (cluster) and household in the sample enumeration area (cluster) and second stage stratum. second stage stratum. A second component in the calculation of sample weights A second component in the calculation of sample weights takes into account the level of non-response for the takes into account the level of non-response for the household and individual interviews. The adjustment for household and individual interviews. The adjustment for household non-response is equal to the inverse value of:household non-response is equal to the inverse value of: RRRRhchc = = Number of interviewed households in stratum hc / Number of interviewed households in stratum hc / Number of sample occupied households in stratum hcNumber of sample occupied households in stratum hc After the completion of fieldwork, response rates were After the completion of fieldwork, response rates were calculated for each sampling stratum. These were used calculated for each sampling stratum. These were used to adjust the sample weights calculated for each cluster. to adjust the sample weights calculated for each cluster. Response rates in the Serbia Multiple Indicator Cluster Response rates in the Serbia Multiple Indicator Cluster Survey are shown in Table HH.1 in this report.Survey are shown in Table HH.1 in this report. Similarly, the adjustment for non-response at the Similarly, the adjustment for non-response at the individual level (women, under-5 children and men) individual level (women, under-5 children and men) for each stratum is equal to the inverse value of:for each stratum is equal to the inverse value of: RRRRhchc = Completed women’s (or under-5’s, or men’s) = Completed women’s (or under-5’s, or men’s) questionnaires in stratum hc / Eligible sample womenquestionnaires in stratum hc / Eligible sample women (or under-5s, or men’s) in stratum hc(or under-5s, or men’s) in stratum hc The non-response adjustment factors for women’s, under-The non-response adjustment factors for women’s, under- 5’s and men’s questionnaires are applied to the adjusted 5’s and men’s questionnaires are applied to the adjusted household weights. The numbers of eligible women, household weights. The numbers of eligible women, under-5 children and men were obtained from the roster under-5 children and men were obtained from the roster of household members in the Household Questionnaire of household members in the Household Questionnaire for households where interviews were completed.for households where interviews were completed. The design weights for the households were calculated The design weights for the households were calculated by multiplying the above factors for each enumeration by multiplying the above factors for each enumeration area and second stage stratum (with/without children). area and second stage stratum (with/without children). These weights were then standardized (or normalized), These weights were then standardized (or normalized), one purpose of which is to make the weighted sum of the one purpose of which is to make the weighted sum of the interviewed sample units equal the total sample size at interviewed sample units equal the total sample size at the national level. Normalization is performed by dividing the national level. Normalization is performed by dividing the aforementioned design weights by the average design the aforementioned design weights by the average design weight at the national level. The average design weight is weight at the national level. The average design weight is calculated as the sum of the design weights divided by the calculated as the sum of the design weights divided by the unweighted total). A similar standardization procedure unweighted total). A similar standardization procedure was followed in obtaining standardized weights for the was followed in obtaining standardized weights for the women’s, under-5’s and men’s questionnaires. Adjusted women’s, under-5’s and men’s questionnaires. Adjusted (normalized) weights varied between 0.08 and 9.43 in the (normalized) weights varied between 0.08 and 9.43 in the 400 sample enumeration areas (clusters).400 sample enumeration areas (clusters). Sample weights were appended to all data sets and Sample weights were appended to all data sets and analyses were performed by weighting the data for each analyses were performed by weighting the data for each sample household, woman, under-5 and men with these sample household, woman, under-5 and men with these sample weights. sample weights. MONITORING THE SITUATION OF CHILDREN AND WOMEN 261 The major features of the sample design are described in The major features of the sample design are described in this appendix. Sample design features include the target this appendix. Sample design features include the target sample size, sample allocation, sampling frame and listing, sample size, sample allocation, sampling frame and listing, choice of domains, sampling stages, stratification, and the choice of domains, sampling stages, stratification, and the calculation of sample weights. calculation of sample weights. The primary objective of the sample design for the Roma The primary objective of the sample design for the Roma settlements Multiple Indicator Cluster Survey was to settlements Multiple Indicator Cluster Survey was to produce statistically reliable estimates of most indicators, produce statistically reliable estimates of most indicators, at the level of Serbia, and for urban and rural areas. at the level of Serbia, and for urban and rural areas. A stratified, two-stage random sampling approach was A stratified, two-stage random sampling approach was used for the selection of the survey sample. used for the selection of the survey sample. Sample Size and Sample AllocationSample Size and Sample Allocation The target sample size for the Roma settlements was The target sample size for the Roma settlements was calculated as 1800 households and 100 enumeration areas, calculated as 1800 households and 100 enumeration areas, considering the proposed formula and budget available. For considering the proposed formula and budget available. For the calculation of the sample size, the key indicator used the calculation of the sample size, the key indicator used was the percentage of children aged 0–4 years who had had was the percentage of children aged 0–4 years who had had Acute Respiratory infections. The following formula was Acute Respiratory infections. The following formula was used to estimate the required sample size for this indicator:used to estimate the required sample size for this indicator: n n = = [4([4(r)(1–)(1–r)()( f )(1.15)])(1.15)] [(0.12[(0.12r)2(p)()(ñ)])] wherewhere n is the required sample size, expressed as the is the required sample size, expressed as the number of householdsnumber of households 4 is a factor to achieve the 95 percent level of confidenceis a factor to achieve the 95 percent level of confidence r is the predicted or anticipated value of the indicator, is the predicted or anticipated value of the indicator, expressed in the form of a proportionexpressed in the form of a proportion 1.151.15 is the factor necessary to raise the sample size by 15 is the factor necessary to raise the sample size by 15 per cent for the expected non-response per cent for the expected non-response f is the shortened symbol for deff (design effect) is the shortened symbol for deff (design effect) 0.2r0.2r is the margin of error to be tolerated at the 95 is the margin of error to be tolerated at the 95 percent level of confidence, defined as 20 per cent percent level of confidence, defined as 20 per cent of r (relative margin of error of r)of r (relative margin of error of r) Appendix A Appendix A Sample Design for the Roma Settlements Sample Design for the Roma Settlements SampleSample p is the proportion of the total population upon is the proportion of the total population upon which the indicator, r, is basedwhich the indicator, r, is based ñ is the average household size (number of persons is the average household size (number of persons per household).per household). For the calculation, For the calculation, r (percentage of children aged 0–4 years (percentage of children aged 0–4 years who had had Acute Respiratory infections) was assumed to who had had Acute Respiratory infections) was assumed to be 12 percent. The value of be 12 percent. The value of deffdeff (design effect) was taken as (design effect) was taken as 1.5 based on estimates from previous surveys, 1.5 based on estimates from previous surveys, p (percentage (percentage of children aged 0–4 years in the total population) was of children aged 0–4 years in the total population) was taken as 11 percent, taken as 11 percent, ñ ñ (average household size) was taken as (average household size) was taken as 4.3, and the response rate is assumed to be 85%. 4.3, and the response rate is assumed to be 85%. The resulting number of households from this exercise was The resulting number of households from this exercise was about 2700 households, which is the sample size needed to about 2700 households, which is the sample size needed to provide a large number of children under 5 (about 1300) provide a large number of children under 5 (about 1300) for drawing reliable conclusions. Therefore, in order to for drawing reliable conclusions. Therefore, in order to reduce the number of households in the sample, but not to reduce the number of households in the sample, but not to lose estimation reliability, the stratification of the sample lose estimation reliability, the stratification of the sample into categories with and without children aged 0–4 years into categories with and without children aged 0–4 years was needed. The required number of households in each was needed. The required number of households in each category was obtained supposing an overall sample of 1800 category was obtained supposing an overall sample of 1800 households, 100 clusters and same number of households households, 100 clusters and same number of households with children under 5 per cluster. Assuming one child under with children under 5 per cluster. Assuming one child under 5 per household and considering the required number of 5 per household and considering the required number of sample children, the total sample size was calculated as 1300 sample children, the total sample size was calculated as 1300 (13 per cluster) households with children under 5 and 500 (13 per cluster) households with children under 5 and 500 (5 per cluster) of households without children under 5. (5 per cluster) of households without children under 5. Thus, the overall number of households to be selected per Thus, the overall number of households to be selected per cluster was determined as 18 households.cluster was determined as 18 households. Stratification of enumeration areas for Roma settlements Stratification of enumeration areas for Roma settlements was done according to type of settlement (urban and was done according to type of settlement (urban and rural), and territory, to the three strata: Vojvodina, rural), and territory, to the three strata: Vojvodina, Belgrade and Central Serbia without Belgrade.Belgrade and Central Serbia without Belgrade. Sample allocation of enumeration areas according to Sample allocation of enumeration areas according to territory and type of settlement was not proportional territory and type of settlement was not proportional to the number of Roma households. In order to produce to the number of Roma households. In order to produce estimates with better precision for territories and estimates with better precision for territories and urban/rural domains, the number of enumeration urban/rural domains, the number of enumeration areas for Vojvodina and rural domains was increased. areas for Vojvodina and rural domains was increased. The table below shows the allocation of clusters to the The table below shows the allocation of clusters to the sampling strata.sampling strata. MONITORING THE SITUATION OF CHILDREN AND WOMEN 261 MULTIPLE INDICATOR CLUSTER SURVEY 2010262 Table SD.1R: Allocation of Sample Clusters (Primary Sampling Units) to Sampling Strata Number of households (Census 2002) Number of Sample Clusters Total Urban Rural Total Urban Rural Belgrade 2723 2469 254 22 17 5 Central Serbia without Belgrade 9152 6795 2357 55 35 20 Vojvodina 1670 759 911 23 11 12 Total 13545 10023 3522 100 63 37 Sampling Frame and Selection of ClustersSampling Frame and Selection of Clusters The frame for Roma settlements was based on information The frame for Roma settlements was based on information from the 2002 Serbian Population Census. It was formed from the 2002 Serbian Population Census. It was formed by excluding all enumeration areas with 17 or less Roma by excluding all enumeration areas with 17 or less Roma households. In this way 46% of the Roma households were households. In this way 46% of the Roma households were included. The resulting frame with the number of Roma included. The resulting frame with the number of Roma households from the Census data for each enumeration households from the Census data for each enumeration area was used for the selection of primary sampling units area was used for the selection of primary sampling units (PSUs). The primary sampling units (PSUs) were selected (PSUs). The primary sampling units (PSUs) were selected from each of the sampling strata by using a systematic from each of the sampling strata by using a systematic pps (probability proportional to size) sampling procedure, pps (probability proportional to size) sampling procedure, based on the estimated number of Roma households. The based on the estimated number of Roma households. The first stage of sampling was thus completed by selecting the first stage of sampling was thus completed by selecting the required number of enumeration areas from each of the required number of enumeration areas from each of the three territories, by urban and rural areas separately.three territories, by urban and rural areas separately. Listing ActivitiesListing Activities Since the sampling frame (the 2002 Population Census) was Since the sampling frame (the 2002 Population Census) was not up-to-date, a new listing of households was conducted not up-to-date, a new listing of households was conducted in all the sample enumeration areas prior to the selection in all the sample enumeration areas prior to the selection of households. For this purpose, listing teams were formed, of households. For this purpose, listing teams were formed, who visited each enumeration area, and listed the occupied who visited each enumeration area, and listed the occupied households. The Statistical Office of the Republic of Serbia households. The Statistical Office of the Republic of Serbia was responsible for updating the household lists. Regional was responsible for updating the household lists. Regional Offices formed the teams responsible for listing and Offices formed the teams responsible for listing and fieldwork. For each team, the list of all households in the fieldwork. For each team, the list of all households in the selected cluster from the Census 2002 was provided. The selected cluster from the Census 2002 was provided. The interviewers’ task was to go to the addresses listed and to interviewers’ task was to go to the addresses listed and to identify the current Roma households, together with the identify the current Roma households, together with the number of children under five living in the household. The number of children under five living in the household. The listing process was performed during June and July 2010.listing process was performed during June and July 2010. Selection of HouseholdsSelection of Households Updated lists of households were prepared by the listing Updated lists of households were prepared by the listing teams in the field for each sample enumeration area and teams in the field for each sample enumeration area and sent to the Statistical Office of the Republic of Serbia. sent to the Statistical Office of the Republic of Serbia. Afterwards, the updated lists of the households in the Afterwards, the updated lists of the households in the enumeration areas were classified into two categories: enumeration areas were classified into two categories: households with children under 5 and households households with children under 5 and households without children. According to the number of listed without children. According to the number of listed households for each category per enumeration area households for each category per enumeration area and the desired sample size of 1300 households with and the desired sample size of 1300 households with children under 5, a different number of households children under 5, a different number of households to be selected from each category in enumeration to be selected from each category in enumeration areas was determined. The number of households areas was determined. The number of households with children under 5 per cluster was calculated as with children under 5 per cluster was calculated as 13, excluding clusters from Belgrade region where 14 13, excluding clusters from Belgrade region where 14 households with children under 5 were assigned. In households with children under 5 were assigned. In the case of clusters with less than 13 (14 for Belgrade the case of clusters with less than 13 (14 for Belgrade region) updated households with children under 5, all region) updated households with children under 5, all of these households were included in the sample. The of these households were included in the sample. The number of households without children under 5 was number of households without children under 5 was obtained as the difference between the total number obtained as the difference between the total number of sample households per cluster (18) and the number of sample households per cluster (18) and the number of households with children under 5 allocated in the of households with children under 5 allocated in the cluster. The households from both categories were cluster. The households from both categories were selected systematically with equal probabilities. During selected systematically with equal probabilities. During the data collection, another 15 households (11 with the data collection, another 15 households (11 with children under-5 and 4 households without children children under-5 and 4 households without children under-5) were included in the sample, in the case when under-5) were included in the sample, in the case when interviewers identified that two households were living interviewers identified that two households were living in the dwelling, instead of only the one listed.in the dwelling, instead of only the one listed. MULTIPLE INDICATOR CLUSTER SURVEY 2010262 MONITORING THE SITUATION OF CHILDREN AND WOMEN 263 Calculation of Sample WeightsCalculation of Sample Weights The sample for Roma settlements is not self-weighting, due The sample for Roma settlements is not self-weighting, due to disproportional allocation of the sample to the strata, to disproportional allocation of the sample to the strata, categories of households (with/without children under 5) categories of households (with/without children under 5) and the final non-response. In order to obtain representative and the final non-response. In order to obtain representative results for the Roma settlements, sample weights were used. results for the Roma settlements, sample weights were used. The major component of the weight is the reciprocal value The major component of the weight is the reciprocal value of the sampling fraction employed in selecting the number of the sampling fraction employed in selecting the number of sample households in a particular sampling stratum (h), of sample households in a particular sampling stratum (h), from PSU (i) within category (c):from PSU (i) within category (c): Whichic= = 1 fhichic The term The term fhichic, the sampling fraction for the , the sampling fraction for the c-thc-th category category within the within the i-thi-th sample PSU in the sample PSU in the h-thh-th stratum, is the stratum, is the product of the probabilities of selection at every stage product of the probabilities of selection at every stage in each sampling stratum:in each sampling stratum: fhic hic = = p1hihi x p2hichic where where pshicshic is the probability of selection of the sampling unit is the probability of selection of the sampling unit at each stage at each stage s=(1,2)s=(1,2) for the sample households in category for the sample households in category c of the of the i-thi-th sample PSU in the sample PSU in the h-thh-th sampling stratum. sampling stratum. Since the estimated number of households in each Since the estimated number of households in each enumeration area (PSU) in the sampling frame used for the enumeration area (PSU) in the sampling frame used for the first stage selection and the updated number of households first stage selection and the updated number of households in the enumeration area from the listing were different, in the enumeration area from the listing were different, individual sampling fractions for households in each individual sampling fractions for households in each sample enumeration area (cluster) by second stage stratum sample enumeration area (cluster) by second stage stratum (with/without children) were calculated. The sampling (with/without children) were calculated. The sampling fractions for households in each enumeration area (cluster) fractions for households in each enumeration area (cluster) and second stage stratum therefore included the first stage and second stage stratum therefore included the first stage probability (probability (p1hi1hi) of selection of the enumeration area in ) of selection of the enumeration area in that particular sampling stratum and the second stage that particular sampling stratum and the second stage probability (probability (p2hic2hic) of selection of a household in the sample ) of selection of a household in the sample enumeration area (cluster) and second stage stratum. enumeration area (cluster) and second stage stratum. A second component in the calculation of sample weights A second component in the calculation of sample weights takes into account the level of non-response for the takes into account the level of non-response for the household and individual interviews. The adjustment for household and individual interviews. The adjustment for household non-response is equal to the inverse value of:household non-response is equal to the inverse value of: RRRRhchc = = Number of interviewed households in stratum hc / Number of interviewed households in stratum hc / Number of sample occupied households in stratum hcNumber of sample occupied households in stratum hc After the completion of fieldwork, response rates were After the completion of fieldwork, response rates were calculated for each sampling stratum. These were used calculated for each sampling stratum. These were used to adjust the sample weights calculated for each cluster. to adjust the sample weights calculated for each cluster. Response rates in the Serbia Multiple Indicator Cluster Response rates in the Serbia Multiple Indicator Cluster Survey are shown in Table HH.1 in this report.Survey are shown in Table HH.1 in this report. Similarly, the adjustment for non-response at the Similarly, the adjustment for non-response at the individual level (women, under-5 children and men) individual level (women, under-5 children and men) for each stratum is equal to the inverse value of:for each stratum is equal to the inverse value of: RRRRhchc = Completed women’s (or under-5’s, or men’s) = Completed women’s (or under-5’s, or men’s) questionnaires in stratum hc / Eligible sample womenquestionnaires in stratum hc / Eligible sample women (or under-5s, or men’s) in stratum hc(or under-5s, or men’s) in stratum hc The non-response adjustment factors for women’s, under-5’sThe non-response adjustment factors for women’s, under-5’s and men’s questionnaires are applied to the adjusted and men’s questionnaires are applied to the adjusted household weights. The numbers of eligible women, household weights. The numbers of eligible women, under-5 children and men were obtained from the roster under-5 children and men were obtained from the roster of household members in the Household Questionnaire of household members in the Household Questionnaire for households where interviews were completed.for households where interviews were completed. The design weights for the households were calculated The design weights for the households were calculated by multiplying the above factors for each enumeration by multiplying the above factors for each enumeration area and second stage stratum (with/without children). area and second stage stratum (with/without children). These weights were then standardized (or normalized), These weights were then standardized (or normalized), one purpose of which is to make the weighted sum of the one purpose of which is to make the weighted sum of the interviewed sample units equal the total sample size at interviewed sample units equal the total sample size at the national level. Normalization is performed by dividing the national level. Normalization is performed by dividing the aforementioned design weights by the average design the aforementioned design weights by the average design weight at the national level. The average design weight is weight at the national level. The average design weight is calculated as the sum of the design weights divided by the calculated as the sum of the design weights divided by the unweighted total). A similar standardization procedure unweighted total). A similar standardization procedure was followed in obtaining standardized weights for the was followed in obtaining standardized weights for the women’s, under-5’s and men’s questionnaires. Adjusted women’s, under-5’s and men’s questionnaires. Adjusted (normalized) weights varied between 0.14 and 13.0 in (normalized) weights varied between 0.14 and 13.0 in the 100 sample enumeration areas (clusters).the 100 sample enumeration areas (clusters). Sample weights were appended to all data sets and Sample weights were appended to all data sets and analyses were performed by weighting the data for each analyses were performed by weighting the data for each sample household, woman, under-5 and men with these sample household, woman, under-5 and men with these sample weights. sample weights. MONITORING THE SITUATION OF CHILDREN AND WOMEN 263 MULTIPLE INDICATOR CLUSTER SURVEY 2010264 Project DirectorProject Director Professor Dragan Vukmirovic, PhD,Professor Dragan Vukmirovic, PhD, Director — SORSDirector — SORS Technical CoordinatorTechnical Coordinator Dragana Djokovic–Papic — SORSDragana Djokovic–Papic — SORS Field CoordinatorsField Coordinators Dragana Djokovic–Papic — SORSDragana Djokovic–Papic — SORS Jovanka Stojanovic — SORSJovanka Stojanovic — SORS Questionnaire DesignQuestionnaire Design Aleksandra Jovic — UNICEFAleksandra Jovic — UNICEF Dragana Djokovic–Papic — SORSDragana Djokovic–Papic — SORS Jovanka Stojanovic — SORSJovanka Stojanovic — SORS Vladica Jankovic — SORSVladica Jankovic — SORS Sample DesignSample Design Mirjana Ogrizovic–Brasanac — SORSMirjana Ogrizovic–Brasanac — SORS Data Processing/ProgrammingData Processing/Programming Tijana Milojevic — SORSTijana Milojevic — SORS Vesna Pantelic — SORSVesna Pantelic — SORS Vladica Jankovic — SORSVladica Jankovic — SORS UNICEFUNICEF Judita Reichenberg — Area Representative,Judita Reichenberg — Area Representative, UNICEF, SerbiaUNICEF, Serbia Lesley Miller — Deputy Representative,Lesley Miller — Deputy Representative, UNICEF, SerbiaUNICEF, Serbia Aleksandra Jovic — Social Policy Specialist,Aleksandra Jovic — Social Policy Specialist, UNICEF, SerbiaUNICEF, Serbia Milica Cvetkovic — Knowledge Management Officer, Milica Cvetkovic — Knowledge Management Officer, UNICEF, SerbiaUNICEF, Serbia Goran Milovanovic — Project Consultant,Goran Milovanovic — Project Consultant, UNICEF, SerbiaUNICEF, Serbia Technical CommitteeTechnical Committee UNICEFUNICEF SORSSORS Social Inclusion and Poverty Reduction Unit of the Social Inclusion and Poverty Reduction Unit of the Government of SerbiaGovernment of Serbia Appendix BAppendix B List of Personnel Involved in the SurveyList of Personnel Involved in the Survey Field SupervisorsField Supervisors Biljana IlicBiljana Ilic Branko DragisicBranko Dragisic Dragan KrsticDragan Krstic Dragan KuzmicDragan Kuzmic Dragan SpasojevicDragan Spasojevic Zoran MilovanovicZoran Milovanovic Jasmina SavicJasmina Savic Ljiljana VukovicLjiljana Vukovic Milan JelenkovicMilan Jelenkovic Mirko VukomanovicMirko Vukomanovic Nada VilovacNada Vilovac Nadezda BogdanovicNadezda Bogdanovic Speranca RotarSperanca Rotar Suncica Stefanovic–SesticSuncica Stefanovic–Sestic Ergin KurtesiErgin Kurtesi Vesna SkrobicVesna Skrobic Vukica StojanovicVukica Stojanovic Zvezdana DimitrijevicZvezdana Dimitrijevic EditorsEditors Danijela IvanovicDanijela Ivanovic Ivana MarkovicIvana Markovic Jasmina ZivoticJasmina Zivotic Javorka DjordjevicJavorka Djordjevic Julka StojkovicJulka Stojkovic Kristina VujinovicKristina Vujinovic Ksenija JelicicKsenija Jelicic Ljiljana MatovicLjiljana Matovic Ljiljana TerzicLjiljana Terzic Milinka MilojevicMilinka Milojevic Mira RajovicMira Rajovic Milena MihajlovicMilena Mihajlovic Mirjana MihajlovicMirjana Mihajlovic Sanja MancicSanja Mancic Slobodanka NozicaSlobodanka Nozica Snezana MaricSnezana Maric Valentina Jovicic–IsakovicValentina Jovicic–Isakovic Zorica StankovicZorica Stankovic Measurers/DriversMeasurers/Drivers Bojan LojpurBojan Lojpur Bojan TrajkovskiBojan Trajkovski MONITORING THE SITUATION OF CHILDREN AND WOMEN 265 Darko DjuricDarko Djuric Dragan CvetkovicDragan Cvetkovic Igor StojanovicIgor Stojanovic Milan BjelicMilan Bjelic Milan NikolicMilan Nikolic Milos BozicMilos Bozic Milos MajkicMilos Majkic Miodrag JanjicMiodrag Janjic Miroslav KrajinovicMiroslav Krajinovic Nebojsa StojanovicNebojsa Stojanovic Nemanja ParipovicNemanja Paripovic Sasa SimicSasa Simic Voja JovanovicVoja Jovanovic Zoran DjukicZoran Djukic Zoran TodorovicZoran Todorovic Dejan KacarDejan Kacar Field Interviewers Field Interviewers Aleksandra LukovicAleksandra Lukovic Aleksandra SrbulovicAleksandra Srbulovic Ana VinkesevicAna Vinkesevic Ankica PetrovicAnkica Petrovic Biljana ArsicBiljana Arsic Bojana DereticBojana Deretic Bojana VelimirovicBojana Velimirovic Danica RakicDanica Rakic Dragana KrstevskiDragana Krstevski Hanuma AzirovicHanuma Azirovic Ivana LabanacIvana Labanac Ivana ObrenovIvana Obrenov Ivana SremcevicIvana Sremcevic Ivanka MaksicIvanka Maksic Jana NeskovicJana Neskovic Jasmina AvcinikovJasmina Avcinikov Jasna MirkovicJasna Mirkovic Jelena BozicJelena Bozic Jelena MiladinovicJelena Miladinovic Jelena NikolicJelena Nikolic Jelena PetrovicJelena Petrovic Jelena VasicJelena Vasic Jovanka Stanojevic–BrzakovicJovanka Stanojevic–Brzakovic Katarina ErnjakovicKatarina Ernjakovic Maja LekicMaja Lekic Marija JankovicMarija Jankovic Marija JovanovicMarija Jovanovic Marija KnezevicMarija Knezevic Marija NesicMarija Nesic Marija PejovicMarija Pejovic Marija TomicMarija Tomic Marija TrajkovicMarija Trajkovic Marijana BarudzijaMarijana Barudzija Marijana SimicMarijana Simic Marina SimeunovicMarina Simeunovic Milica NinkovicMilica Ninkovic Milica StojanovicMilica Stojanovic Milica ZubicMilica Zubic Mirjana DzelebdzicMirjana Dzelebdzic Mirjana JovanovicMirjana Jovanovic Mirjana MilojevicMirjana Milojevic Natasa KosticNatasa Kostic Radmila BrankovicRadmila Brankovic Rialda KadricRialda Kadric Sanja BelicSanja Belic Senka DjokicSenka Djokic Snezana RaicSnezana Raic Snezana VidakovicSnezana Vidakovic Svetlana VukadinovicSvetlana Vukadinovic Tanja ZivicTanja Zivic Tatjana VidicTatjana Vidic Vesna NesovicVesna Nesovic Zlatko MilovanovicZlatko Milovanovic Zorica PaskotaZorica Paskota Data Entry PersonsData Entry Persons Biljana ZdravkovicBiljana Zdravkovic Dragana MihajlovicDragana Mihajlovic Dragica PejcinovskiDragica Pejcinovski Gordana Loncarevic Gordana Loncarevic Ivana VucicIvana Vucic Jovanka TosicJovanka Tosic Ljiljana JekicLjiljana Jekic Ljiljana SimicLjiljana Simic Milena Acimovic–KrsticMilena Acimovic–Krstic Miodrag ErgicMiodrag Ergic Natasa MiljkovicNatasa Miljkovic Olgica ZivkovicOlgica Zivkovic Petar VujnovicPetar Vujnovic Selena MarkovicSelena Markovic Slavica ManovSlavica Manov Slavica PavkovSlavica Pavkov Snezana PredojevicSnezana Predojevic Stana JelicStana Jelic Svetlana GacicSvetlana Gacic Tamara ErgicTamara Ergic Vladimir KovacevicVladimir Kovacevic External ConsultantsExternal Consultants Aleksandar Zoric Aleksandar Zoric Oleg Benes Oleg Benes Dragana JovicDragana Jovic Jelena Gudelj–RakicJelena Gudelj–Rakic Tanja KnezevicTanja Knezevic Katarina SedlackiKatarina Sedlacki Dragana Lozanovic–MiladinovicDragana Lozanovic–Miladinovic Danijela SimicDanijela Simic Tanja RankovicTanja Rankovic Ivica StankovicIvica Stankovic Fahrudin MemicFahrudin Memic MULTIPLE INDICATOR CLUSTER SURVEY 2010266 The sample of respondents selected in the Serbia Multiple The sample of respondents selected in the Serbia Multiple Indicator Cluster Survey is only one of the samples that Indicator Cluster Survey is only one of the samples that could have been selected from the same population, using could have been selected from the same population, using the same design and size. Each of these samples would the same design and size. Each of these samples would yield results that differ somewhat from the results of the yield results that differ somewhat from the results of the actual sample selected. Sampling errors are a measure actual sample selected. Sampling errors are a measure of the variability between the estimates from all possible of the variability between the estimates from all possible samples. The extent of variability is not known exactly, samples. The extent of variability is not known exactly, but can be estimated statistically from the survey data.but can be estimated statistically from the survey data. The following sampling error measures are presented The following sampling error measures are presented in this appendix for each of the selected indicators:in this appendix for each of the selected indicators:  Standard error (Standard error (sese): Sampling errors are usually ): Sampling errors are usually measured in terms of standard errors for particular measured in terms of standard errors for particular indicators (means, proportions etc). Standard error is indicators (means, proportions etc). Standard error is the square root of the variance of the estimate. The the square root of the variance of the estimate. The Taylor linearization method is used for the estimation Taylor linearization method is used for the estimation of standard errors.of standard errors.  Coefficient of variation (Coefficient of variation (se/rse/r) is the ratio of the ) is the ratio of the standard error to the value of the indicator, and is a standard error to the value of the indicator, and is a measure of the relative sampling error.measure of the relative sampling error.  Design effect ( Design effect (deffdeff ) is the ratio of the actual variance ) is the ratio of the actual variance of an indicator, under the sampling method used of an indicator, under the sampling method used in the survey, to the variance calculated under the in the survey, to the variance calculated under the assumption of simple random sampling. The square assumption of simple random sampling. The square root of the design effect (root of the design effect (deftdeft) is used to show the ) is used to show the efficiency of the sample design in relation to the efficiency of the sample design in relation to the precision. A deft value of 1.0 indicates that the sample precision. A deft value of 1.0 indicates that the sample design is as efficient as a simple random sample, design is as efficient as a simple random sample, while a deft value above 1.0 indicates the increase in while a deft value above 1.0 indicates the increase in the standard error due to the use of a more complex the standard error due to the use of a more complex sample design.sample design. Appendix CAppendix C Estimates of Sampling ErrorsEstimates of Sampling Errors for the Serbia Samplefor the Serbia Sample  Confidence limits are calculated to show the interval Confidence limits are calculated to show the interval within which the true value for the population can be within which the true value for the population can be reasonably assumed to fall, with a specified level of reasonably assumed to fall, with a specified level of confidence. For any given statistic calculated from the confidence. For any given statistic calculated from the survey, the value of that statistic will fall within a range survey, the value of that statistic will fall within a range of plus or minus two times the standard error (of plus or minus two times the standard error (r + 2ser + 2se or or r – 2ser – 2se) of the statistic in 95 percent of all possible ) of the statistic in 95 percent of all possible samples of identical size and design. samples of identical size and design. For the calculation of sampling errors from MICS data, For the calculation of sampling errors from MICS data, SPSS Version 18 Complex Samples module has been SPSS Version 18 Complex Samples module has been used. The results are shown in the tables that follow. used. The results are shown in the tables that follow. In addition to the sampling error measures described In addition to the sampling error measures described above, the tables also include weighted and unweighted above, the tables also include weighted and unweighted counts of denominators for each indicator. The weighted counts of denominators for each indicator. The weighted counts are based on the normalized weights, so the counts are based on the normalized weights, so the weighted count at the national level is equal to the weighted count at the national level is equal to the unweighted count. Given that the average relative weight unweighted count. Given that the average relative weight is 1, in comparing the weighted count for each domain is 1, in comparing the weighted count for each domain to the corresponding unweighted count, it is possible to to the corresponding unweighted count, it is possible to determine whether the weights for the domain are above determine whether the weights for the domain are above or below average. A relative weight higher than 1 means or below average. A relative weight higher than 1 means that the domain was over-sampled in relative terms.that the domain was over-sampled in relative terms. Sampling errors are calculated for indicators of primary Sampling errors are calculated for indicators of primary interest, for the national level, for the regions, and for urban interest, for the national level, for the regions, and for urban and rural areas. Five of the selected indicators are based and rural areas. Five of the selected indicators are based on household members, 18 are based on women, 8 are on household members, 18 are based on women, 8 are based on men and 12 are based on children under 5. All based on men and 12 are based on children under 5. All indicators presented here are in the form of proportions. indicators presented here are in the form of proportions. Table SE.1 shows the list of indicators for which sampling Table SE.1 shows the list of indicators for which sampling errors are calculated, including the base population errors are calculated, including the base population (denominator) for each indicator. Tables SE.2 to SE.8 show (denominator) for each indicator. Tables SE.2 to SE.8 show the calculated sampling errors for selected domains.the calculated sampling errors for selected domains. MONITORING THE SITUATION OF CHILDREN AND WOMEN 267 Table SE.1: Indicators selected for sampling error calculations, Serbia, 2010  List of indicators selected for sampling error calculations, and base populations (denominators) for each indicator MICS4 INDICATOR BASE POPULATION HOUSEHOLD MEMBERS 4.1 Use of improved drinking water sources All household members 4.3 Use of improved sanitation facilities All household members 7.5 Secondary school net attendance ratio (adjusted) Children of secondary school age 9.18 Prevalence of children with at least one parent dead Children age 0–17 years 8.5 Violent discipline Children age 2–14 years WOMEN – Pregnant women Women age 15–49 years 5.2 Early childbearing Women age 20–24 years 5.3 Contraceptive prevalence Women age 15–49 years who are currently married or in union 5.4 Unmet need Women age 15–49 years who are currently married or in union 5.5a Antenatal care coverage — at least once by skilled personnel Women age 15–49 years with a live birth in the 2 years preceding the survey 5.5b Antenatal care coverage — at least four times by any provider Women age 15–49 years with a live birth in the 2 years preceding the survey 5.7 Skilled attendant at delivery Women age 15–49 years with a live birth in the 2 years preceding the survey 5.8 Institutional deliveries Women age 15–49 years with a live birth in the 2 years preceding the survey 5.9 Caesarean section Women age 15–49 years with a live birth in the 2 years preceding the survey 7.1 Literacy rate among young women Women age 15–24 years 8.7 Marriage before age 18 Women age 20–49 years 9.2 Comprehensive knowledge about HIV prevention among young people Women age 15–24 years 9.3 Knowledge of mother-to-child transmission of HIV Women age 15–49 years 9.4 Accepting attitudes towards people living with HIV Women age 15–49 years who have heard of HIV 9.6 Women who have been tested for HIV and know the results Women age 15–49 years 9.7 Sexually active young women who have been tested for HIV and know the results Women age 15–24 years who have had sex in the 12 months preceding the survey 9.11 Sex before age 15 among young women Women age 15–24 years 9.16 Condom use with non-regular partners Women age 15–24 years who had a non-marital, non-cohabiting partner in the 12 months preceding the survey MEN 7.1 Literacy rate among young men Men age 15–24 years 8.7 Marriage before age 18 Men age 20–29 years 9.2 Comprehensive knowledge about HIV prevention among young people Men age 15–24 years 9.4 Accepting attitudes towards people living with HIV Men age 15–29 years who have heard of HIV 9.11 Sex before age 15 among young men Men age 15–24 years 9.16 Condom use with non-regular partners Men age 15–24 years who had a non-marital, non-cohabiting partner in the 12 months preceding the survey UNDER–5s 2.1a Underweight prevalence Children under age 5 2.2a Stunting prevalence Children under age 5 2.3a Wasting prevalence Children under age 5 2.6 Exclusive breastfeeding under 6 months Total number of infants under 6 months of age 2.14 Age-appropriate breastfeeding Children age 0–23 months – Diarrhoea in the previous 2 weeks Children under age 5 – Illness with a cough in the previous 2 weeks Children under age 5 3.8 Oral rehydration therapy with continued feeding Children under age 5 with diarrhoea in the previous 2 weeks 3.10 Antibiotic treatment of suspected pneumonia Children under age 5 with suspected pneumonia in the previous 2 weeks 6.1 Support for learning Children age 36–59 months 6.7 Attendance to early childhood education Children age 36–59 months 8.1 Birth registration Children under age 5 MULTIPLE INDICATOR CLUSTER SURVEY 2010268 Table SE.2: Sampling errors: Total sample, Serbia, 2010 Standard errors, coefficients of variation, design effects (deff), square root of design effects (deft) and confidence intervals for selected indicators   MICS Indicator Value (r) Standard error (se) Coeffi- cient of variation (se/r) Design effect (deff) Square root of design effect (deft) Weigh- ted count Un- weighted count Confidence limits r – 2se r + 2se HOUSEHOLD MEMBERS Use of improved drinking water sources 4.1 .9953 .00113 .001 1.750 1.323 20874 6392 0.993 0.998 Use of improved sanitation facilities 4.3 .9783 .00266 .003 2.131 1.460 20874 6392 0.973 0.984 Secondary school net attendance ratio (adjusted) 7.5 .8933 .00937 .010 .647 .804 901 703 0.875 0.912 Prevalence of children with at least one parent dead 9.18 .0158 .00294 .186 3.742 1.934 4015 6737 0.010 0.022 Violent discipline 8.5 .6715 .01291 .019 2.335 1.528 2861 3093 0.646 0.697 WOMEN Pregnant women – .0213 .00261 .123 1.758 1.326 5385 5385 0.016 0.027 Early childbearing 5.2 .0332 .00684 .206 .990 .995 705 679 0.019 0.047 Contraceptive prevalence 5.3 .6084 .01202 .020 2.460 1.568 3405 4055 0.584 0.632 Unmet need 5.4 .0659 .00516 .078 1.751 1.323 3405 4055 0.056 0.076 Antenatal care coverage — at least once by skilled personnel 5.5a .9900 .00387 .004 1.798 1.341 543 1187 0.982 0.998 Antenatal care coverage — at least four times by any provider 5.5b .9415 .00823 .009 1.458 1.208 543 1187 0.925 0.958 Skilled attendant at delivery 5.7 .9973 .00085 .001 .314 .560 543 1187 0.996 0.999 Institutional deliveries 5.8 .9977 .00096 .001 .475 .689 543 1187 0.996 1.000 Caesarean section 5.9 .2459 .01757 .071 1.974 1.405 543 1187 0.211 0.281 Literacy rate among young women 7.1 .9930 .00300 .003 1.437 1.199 1364 1106 0.987 0.999 Marriage before age 18 8.7 .0771 .00567 .074 2.241 1.497 4726 4958 0.066 0.088 Comprehensive knowledge about HIV prevention among young people 9.2 .5413 .01852 .034 1.527 1.236 1364 1106 0.504 0.578 Knowledge of mother-to-child transmission of HIV 9.3 .6507 .01077 .017 2.747 1.657 5385 5385 0.629 0.672 Accepting attitudes towards people living with HIV 9.4 .1257 .00701 .056 2.383 1.544 5329 5327 0.112 0.140 Women who have been tested for HIV and know the results 9.6 .0142 .00246 .173 2.319 1.523 5385 5385 0.009 0.019 Sexually active young women who have been tested for HIV and know the results 9.7 .0253 .00682 .270 1.430 1.196 802 758 0.012 0.039 Sex before age 15 among young women 9.11 .0174 .00404 .232 1.053 1.026 1364 1106 0.009 0.026 Condom use with non-regular partners 9.16 .7709 .01250 .016 .310 .556 561 351 0.746 0.796 MEN Literacy rate among young men 7.1 .9950 .00254 .003 1.023 1.011 977 790 0.990 1.000 Marriage before age 18 – .0063 .00235 .370 1.082 1.040 1118 1237 0.002 0.011 Comprehensive knowledge about HIV prevention among young people 9.2 .4762 .01567 .033 .777 .881 977 790 0.445 0.508 Accepting attitudes towards people living with HIV – .1043 .01004 .096 1.696 1.302 1575 1572 0.084 0.124 Sex before age 15 among young men 9.11 .0422 .00622 .147 .755 .869 977 790 0.030 0.055 Condom use with non-regular partners 9.16 .8005 .01170 .015 .392 .626 594 458 0.777 0.824 UNDER-5s Underweight prevalence 2.1a .0159 .00412 .259 3.239 1.800 3004 2991 0.008 0.024 Stunting prevalence 2.2a .0658 .00659 .100 1.923 1.387 2745 2723 0.053 0.079 Wasting prevalence 2.3a .0351 .00588 .168 2.730 1.652 2699 2671 0.023 0.047 Exclusive breastfeeding under 6 months 2.6 .1366 .01275 .093 .338 .581 271 246 0.111 0.162 Age-appropriate breastfeeding 2.14 .1931 .01477 .077 1.759 1.326 1220 1257 0.164 0.223 Diarrhoea in the previous 2 weeks – .0748 .00714 .095 2.484 1.576 3374 3374 0.061 0.089 Illness with a cough in the previous 2 weeks – .0540 .00506 .094 1.688 1.299 3374 3374 0.044 0.064 Oral rehydration therapy with continued feeding 3.8 .5972 .03702 .062 1.305 1.142 252 230 0.523 0.671 Antibiotic treatment of suspected pneumonia 3.10 .8159 .01076 .013 .155 .394 182 202 0.794 0.837 Support for learning 6.1 .9517 .00577 .006 1.019 1.009 1406 1407 0.940 0.963 Attendance to early childhood education 6.7 .4384 .01813 .041 1.877 1.370 1406 1407 0.402 0.475 Birth registration 8.1 .9892 .00451 .005 6.448 2.539 3374 3374 0.980 0.998 MONITORING THE SITUATION OF CHILDREN AND WOMEN 269 Table SE.3: Sampling errors: Urban areas, Serbia, 2010 Standard errors, coefficients of variation, design effects (deff), square root of design effects (deft) and confidence intervals for selected indicators   MICS Indicator Value (r) Standard error (se) Coeffi- cient of variation (se/r) Design effect (deff) Square root of design effect (deft) Weigh- ted count Un- weighted count Confidence limits r – 2se r + 2se HOUSEHOLD MEMBERS Use of improved drinking water sources 4.1 .9982 .00100 .001 2.088 1.445 11501 3836 0.996 1.000 Use of improved sanitation facilities 4.3 .9903 .00274 .003 2.994 1.730 11501 3836 0.985 0.996 Secondary school net attendance ratio (adjusted) 7.5 .9266 .01068 .012 .662 .814 491 396 0.905 0.948 Prevalence of children with at least one parent dead 9.18 .0169 .00375 .223 3.223 1.795 2158 3792 0.009 0.024 Violent discipline 8.5 .6648 .01756 .026 2.497 1.580 1538 1805 0.630 0.700 WOMEN Pregnant women – .0169 .00287 .170 1.559 1.249 3155 3153 0.011 0.023 Early childbearing 5.2 .0301 .01086 .361 1.491 1.221 427 370 0.008 0.052 Contraceptive prevalence 5.3 .6044 .01548 .026 2.275 1.508 1852 2271 0.573 0.635 Unmet need 5.4 .0547 .00615 .112 1.663 1.289 1852 2271 0.042 0.067 Antenatal care coverage — at least once by skilled personnel 5.5a .9972 .00137 .001 .448 .669 281 665 0.994 1.000 Antenatal care coverage — at least four times by any provider 5.5b .9429 .01346 .014 2.235 1.495 281 665 0.916 0.970 Skilled attendant at delivery 5.7 .9981 .00137 .001 .664 .815 281 665 0.995 1.000 Institutional deliveries 5.8 .9978 .00162 .002 .794 .891 281 665 0.995 1.000 Caesarean section 5.9 .2401 .02352 .098 2.014 1.419 281 665 0.193 0.287 Literacy rate among young women 7.1 .9948 .00252 .003 .760 .872 814 621 0.990 1.000 Marriage before age 18 8.7 .0446 .00527 .118 1.890 1.375 2767 2902 0.034 0.055 Comprehensive knowledge about HIV prevention among young people 9.2 .6275 .02185 .035 1.266 1.125 814 621 0.584 0.671 Knowledge of mother-to-child transmission of HIV 9.3 .6872 .01460 .021 3.124 1.767 3155 3153 0.658 0.716 Accepting attitudes towards people living with HIV 9.4 .1530 .01005 .066 2.443 1.563 3137 3133 0.133 0.173 Women who have been tested for HIV and know the results 9.6 .0199 .00386 .194 2.413 1.554 3155 3153 0.012 0.028 Sexually active young women who have been tested for HIV and know the results 9.7 .0386 .01070 .277 1.292 1.137 500 420 0.017 0.060 Sex before age 15 among young women 9.11 .0206 .00635 .308 1.238 1.113 814 621 0.008 0.033 Condom use with non-regular partners 9.16 .7887 .01446 .018 .309 .556 398 247 0.760 0.818 MEN Literacy rate among young men 7.1 .9978 .00048 .000 .051 .225 556 467 0.997 0.999 Marriage before age 18 – .0028 .00111 .398 .314 .561 651 708 0.001 0.005 Comprehensive knowledge about HIV prevention among young people 9.2 .5163 .01974 .038 .727 .853 556 467 0.477 0.556 Accepting attitudes towards people living with HIV – .1309 .01478 .113 1.731 1.316 905 903 0.101 0.160 Sex before age 15 among young men 9.11 .0264 .00195 .074 .069 .262 556 467 0.022 0.030 Condom use with non-regular partners 9.16 .8107 .01284 .016 .309 .556 349 289 0.785 0.836 UNDER-5s Underweight prevalence 2.1a .0182 .00653 .359 4.110 2.027 1657 1723 0.005 0.031 Stunting prevalence 2.2a .0553 .00869 .157 2.288 1.513 1531 1582 0.038 0.073 Wasting prevalence 2.3a .0381 .00777 .204 2.555 1.598 1501 1552 0.023 0.054 Exclusive breastfeeding under 6 months 2.6 .1613 .02394 .148 .538 .734 138 128 0.113 0.209 Age-appropriate breastfeeding 2.14 .2126 .02394 .113 2.376 1.541 618 695 0.165 0.260 Diarrhoea in the previous 2 weeks – .0686 .00828 .121 2.051 1.432 1810 1916 0.052 0.085 Illness with a cough in the previous 2 weeks – .0634 .00816 .129 2.145 1.465 1810 1916 0.047 0.080 Oral rehydration therapy with continued feeding 3.8 .5691 .05825 .102 1.743 1.320 124 127 0.453 0.686 Antibiotic treatment of suspected pneumonia 3.10 .8258 .01414 .017 .181 .425 115 131 0.798 0.854 Support for learning 6.1 .9585 .00451 .005 .419 .648 763 821 0.949 0.967 Attendance to early childhood education 6.7 .5661 .02414 .043 1.945 1.395 763 821 0.518 0.614 Birth registration 8.1 .9864 .00766 .008 8.364 2.892 1810 1916 0.971 1.000 MULTIPLE INDICATOR CLUSTER SURVEY 2010270 Table SE.4: Sampling errors: Rural areas, Serbia, 2010 Standard errors, coefficients of variation, design effects (deff), square root of design effects (deft) and confidence intervals for selected indicators   MICS Indicator Value (r) Standard error (se) Coeffi- cient of variation (se/r) Design effect (deff) Square root of design effect (deft) Weigh- ted count Un- weighted count Confidence limits r – 2se r + 2se HOUSEHOLD MEMBERS Use of improved drinking water sources 4.1 .9919 .00218 .002 1.504 1.226 9373 2556 0.988 0.996 Use of improved sanitation facilities 4.3 .9636 .00487 .005 1.728 1.315 9373 2556 0.954 0.973 Secondary school net attendance ratio (adjusted) 7.5 .8534 .01689 .020 .698 .835 410 307 0.820 0.887 Prevalence of children with at least one parent dead 9.18 .0146 .00461 .317 4.368 2.090 1857 2945 0.005 0.024 Violent discipline 8.5 .6792 .01904 .028 2.141 1.463 1323 1288 0.641 0.717 WOMEN Pregnant women – .0275 .00481 .175 1.933 1.390 2230 2232 0.018 0.037 Early childbearing 5.2 .0379 .00509 .134 .219 .468 278 309 0.028 0.048 Contraceptive prevalence 5.3 .6131 .01879 .031 2.654 1.629 1552 1784 0.576 0.651 Unmet need 5.4 .0793 .00851 .107 1.768 1.330 1552 1784 0.062 0.096 Antenatal care coverage — at least once by skilled personnel 5.5a .9823 .00786 .008 1.850 1.360 262 522 0.967 0.998 Antenatal care coverage — at least four times by any provider 5.5b .9401 .00910 .010 .765 .875 262 522 0.922 0.958 Skilled attendant at delivery 5.7 .9964 .00097 .001 .136 .368 262 522 0.994 0.998 Institutional deliveries 5.8 .9976 .00095 .001 .198 .445 262 522 0.996 1.000 Caesarean section 5.9 .2521 .02619 .104 1.895 1.377 262 522 0.200 0.305 Literacy rate among young women 7.1 .9905 .00639 .006 2.094 1.447 549 485 0.978 1.000 Marriage before age 18 8.7 .1231 .01105 .090 2.325 1.525 1959 2056 0.101 0.145 Comprehensive knowledge about HIV prevention among young people 9.2 .4135 .03101 .075 1.919 1.385 549 485 0.351 0.476 Knowledge of mother-to-child transmission of HIV 9.3 .5991 .01516 .025 2.135 1.461 2230 2232 0.569 0.629 Accepting attitudes towards people living with HIV 9.4 .0866 .00853 .098 2.015 1.420 2192 2194 0.070 0.104 Women who have been tested for HIV and know the results 9.6 .0062 .00215 .345 1.664 1.290 2230 2232 0.002 0.011 Sexually active young women who have been tested for HIV and know the results 9.7 .0032 .00215 .676 .490 .700 302 338 0.000 0.007 Sex before age 15 among young women 9.11 .0128 .00336 .263 .433 .658 549 485 0.006 0.019 Condom use with non-regular partners 9.16 .7273 .02564 .035 .341 .584 163 104 0.676 0.779 MEN Literacy rate among young men 7.1 .9912 .00586 .006 1.271 1.128 422 323 0.980 1.000 Marriage before age 18 – .0113 .00536 .475 1.358 1.165 467 529 0.001 0.022 Comprehensive knowledge about HIV prevention among young people 9.2 .4234 .02544 .060 .854 .924 422 323 0.372 0.474 Accepting attitudes towards people living with HIV – .0684 .01166 .171 1.426 1.194 669 669 0.045 0.092 Sex before age 15 among young men 9.11 .0630 .01401 .223 1.072 1.035 422 323 0.035 0.091 Condom use with non-regular partners 9.16 .7859 .02152 .027 .462 .680 245 169 0.743 0.829 UNDER-5s Underweight prevalence 2.1a .0131 .00439 .335 1.886 1.373 1348 1268 0.004 0.022 Stunting prevalence 2.2a .0792 .00973 .123 1.479 1.216 1214 1141 0.060 0.099 Wasting prevalence 2.3a .0313 .00898 .287 2.973 1.724 1198 1119 0.013 0.049 Exclusive breastfeeding under 6 months 2.6 .1109 .00935 .084 .104 .322 133 118 0.092 0.130 Age-appropriate breastfeeding 2.14 .1730 .01678 .097 1.104 1.051 602 562 0.139 0.207 Diarrhoea in the previous 2 weeks – .0820 .01209 .147 2.828 1.682 1564 1458 0.058 0.106 Illness with a cough in the previous 2 weeks – .0431 .00525 .122 .975 .987 1564 1458 0.033 0.054 Oral rehydration therapy with continued feeding 3.8 .6244 .04480 .072 .873 .934 128 103 0.535 0.714 Antibiotic treatment of suspected pneumonia 3.10 .7989 .01567 .020 .107 .327 67 71 0.768 0.830 Support for learning 6.1 .9437 .01128 .012 1.399 1.183 644 586 0.921 0.966 Attendance to early childhood education 6.7 .2871 .02816 .098 2.266 1.505 644 586 0.231 0.343 Birth registration 8.1 .9925 .00394 .004 3.054 1.748 1564 1458 0.985 1.000 MONITORING THE SITUATION OF CHILDREN AND WOMEN 271 Table SE.5: Sampling errors: Region 1 — Belgrade, Serbia, 2010 Standard errors, coefficients of variation, design effects (deff), square root of design effects (deft) and confidence intervals for selected indicators   MICS Indicator Value (r) Standard error (se) Coeffi- cient of variation (se/r) Design effect (deff) Square root of design effect (deft) Weigh- ted count Un- weighted count Confidence limits r – 2se r + 2se HOUSEHOLD MEMBERS Use of improved drinking water sources 4.1 .9942 .00307 .003 2.295 1.515 4193 1399 0.988 1.000 Use of improved sanitation facilities 4.3 .9825 .00587 .006 2.807 1.675 4193 1399 0.971 0.994 Secondary school net attendance ratio (adjusted) 7.5 .9336 .01382 .015 .422 .650 169 138 0.906 0.961 Prevalence of children with at least one parent dead 9.18 .0161 .00547 .339 2.321 1.524 730 1232 0.005 0.027 Violent discipline 8.5 .6737 .03366 .050 2.958 1.720 529 575 0.606 0.741 WOMEN Pregnant women – .0163 .00485 .297 1.557 1.248 1142 1066 0.007 0.026 Early childbearing 5.2 .0019 .00201 1.051 .292 .540 200 139 0.000 0.006 Contraceptive prevalence 5.3 .5820 .02575 .044 1.932 1.390 603 710 0.530 0.633 Unmet need 5.4 .0729 .01257 .172 1.658 1.288 603 710 0.048 0.098 Antenatal care coverage — at least once by skilled personnel 5.5a .9958 .00426 .004 .822 .907 91 191 0.987 1.000 Antenatal care coverage — at least four times by any provider 5.5b .9601 .01468 .015 1.068 1.034 91 191 0.931 0.989 Skilled attendant at delivery 5.7 .9922 .00434 .004 .463 .681 91 191 0.984 1.000 Institutional deliveries 5.8 .9958 .00426 .004 .822 .907 91 191 0.987 1.000 Caesarean section 5.9 .2501 .05385 .215 2.937 1.714 91 191 0.142 0.358 Literacy rate among young women 7.1 .9969 .00131 .001 .119 .345 321 218 0.994 0.999 Marriage before age 18 8.7 .0323 .00706 .219 1.576 1.255 1021 987 0.018 0.046 Comprehensive knowledge about HIV prevention among young people 9.2 .6776 .03216 .047 1.027 1.014 321 218 0.613 0.742 Knowledge of mother-to-child transmission of HIV 9.3 .6873 .02301 .033 2.623 1.620 1142 1066 0.641 0.733 Accepting attitudes towards people living with HIV 9.4 .1904 .01765 .093 2.139 1.463 1134 1059 0.155 0.226 Women who have been tested for HIV and know the results 9.6 .0190 .00685 .361 2.687 1.639 1142 1066 0.005 0.033 Sexually active young women who have been tested for HIV and know the results 9.7 .0431 .01711 .397 1.137 1.066 228 161 0.009 0.077 Sex before age 15 among young women 9.11 .0287 .00810 .282 .511 .715 321 218 0.013 0.045 Condom use with non-regular partners 9.16 .7588 .02125 .028 .289 .537 190 118 0.716 0.801 MEN Literacy rate among young men 7.1 .9871 .01119 .011 1.758 1.326 192 179 0.965 1.000 Marriage before age 18 – .0088 .00681 .777 1.424 1.193 245 268 0.000 0.022 Comprehensive knowledge about HIV prevention among young people 9.2 .5672 .02421 .043 .425 .652 192 179 0.519 0.616 Accepting attitudes towards people living with HIV – .1715 .02120 .124 1.057 1.028 319 335 0.129 0.214 Sex before age 15 among young men 9.11 .0716 .00487 .068 .063 .252 192 179 0.062 0.081 Condom use with non-regular partners 9.16 .8666 .01682 .019 .318 .564 146 131 0.833 0.900 UNDER-5s Underweight prevalence 2.1a .0477 .01826 .383 3.933 1.983 583 537 0.011 0.084 Stunting prevalence 2.2a .0832 .01647 .198 1.831 1.353 565 516 0.050 0.116 Wasting prevalence 2.3a .0489 .01462 .299 2.284 1.511 547 498 0.020 0.078 Exclusive breastfeeding under 6 months 2.6 * * * * * 56 43 * * Age-appropriate breastfeeding 2.14 .1931 .03278 .170 1.400 1.183 200 204 0.128 0.259 Diarrhoea in the previous 2 weeks – .0869 .01556 .179 1.808 1.345 639 593 0.056 0.118 Illness with a cough in the previous 2 weeks – .0493 .01473 .299 2.743 1.656 639 593 0.020 0.079 Oral rehydration therapy with continued feeding 3.8 * * * * * 56 47 * * Antibiotic treatment of suspected pneumonia 3.10 * * * * * 31 24 * * Support for learning 6.1 .9707 .00381 .004 .133 .365 280 262 0.963 0.978 Attendance to early childhood education 6.7 .5940 .04810 .081 2.504 1.582 280 262 0.498 0.690 Birth registration 8.1 .9685 .02136 .022 8.852 2.975 639 593 0.926 1.000 MULTIPLE INDICATOR CLUSTER SURVEY 2010272 Table SE.6: Sampling errors: Region 2 — Vojvodina, Serbia, 2010 Standard errors, coefficients of variation, design effects (deff), square root of design effects (deft) and confidence intervals for selected indicators   MICS Indicator Value (r) Standard error (se) Coeffi- cient of variation (se/r) Design effect (deff) Square root of design effect (deft) Weigh- ted count Un- weighted count Confidence limits r – 2se r + 2se HOUSEHOLD MEMBERS Use of improved drinking water sources 4.1 .9954 .00186 .002 1.368 1.170 5407 1800 0.992 0.999 Use of improved sanitation facilities 4.3 .9927 .00261 .003 1.703 1.305 5407 1800 0.988 0.998 Secondary school net attendance ratio (adjusted) 7.5 .8829 .01650 .019 .479 .692 228 183 0.850 0.916 Prevalence of children with at least one parent dead 9.18 .0188 .00581 .310 3.661 1.913 1077 1995 0.007 0.030 Violent discipline 8.5 .6989 .02435 .035 2.558 1.599 752 909 0.650 0.748 WOMEN Pregnant women – .0278 .00676 .243 2.539 1.593 1376 1503 0.014 0.041 Early childbearing 5.2 .0467 .01206 .258 .562 .750 135 173 0.023 0.071 Contraceptive prevalence 5.3 .6733 .02029 .030 2.176 1.475 887 1163 0.633 0.714 Unmet need 5.4 .0484 .00815 .168 1.675 1.294 887 1163 0.032 0.065 Antenatal care coverage — at least once by skilled personnel 5.5a .9984 .00008 .000 .001 .037 163 382 0.998 0.999 Antenatal care coverage — at least four times by any provider 5.5b .9271 .02097 .023 2.479 1.574 163 382 0.885 0.969 Skilled attendant at delivery 5.7 1.0000 .00000 .000 na na 163 382 1.000 1.000 Institutional deliveries 5.8 1.0000 .00000 .000 na na 163 382 1.000 1.000 Caesarean section 5.9 .1949 .02113 .108 1.084 1.041 163 382 0.153 0.237 Literacy rate among young women 7.1 .9973 .00103 .001 .116 .340 317 295 0.995 0.999 Marriage before age 18 8.7 .0773 .01067 .138 2.204 1.484 1193 1381 0.056 0.099 Comprehensive knowledge about HIV prevention among young people 9.2 .4487 .03952 .088 1.857 1.363 317 295 0.370 0.528 Knowledge of mother-to-child transmission of HIV 9.3 .5093 .02098 .041 2.646 1.627 1376 1503 0.467 0.551 Accepting attitudes towards people living with HIV 9.4 .1261 .01415 .112 2.700 1.643 1358 1486 0.098 0.154 Women who have been tested for HIV and know the results 9.6 .0211 .00535 .254 2.082 1.443 1376 1503 0.010 0.032 Sexually active young women who have been tested for HIV and know the results 9.7 .0317 .01518 .479 1.569 1.253 192 210 0.001 0.062 Sex before age 15 among young women 9.11 .0251 .01141 .454 1.562 1.250 317 295 0.002 0.048 Condom use with non-regular partners 9.16 .7350 .03122 .042 .430 .656 130 87 0.673 0.797 MEN Literacy rate among young men 7.1 .9974 .00204 .002 .322 .568 263 203 0.993 1.000 Marriage before age 18 – .0058 .00322 .556 .571 .756 286 318 0.000 0.012 Comprehensive knowledge about HIV prevention among young people 9.2 .4012 .03195 .080 .858 .926 263 203 0.337 0.465 Accepting attitudes towards people living with HIV – .1157 .02092 .181 1.725 1.313 408 404 0.074 0.158 Sex before age 15 among young men 9.11 .0615 .01360 .221 .647 .804 263 203 0.034 0.089 Condom use with non-regular partners 9.16 .7654 .03500 .046 .785 .886 163 116 0.695 0.835 UNDER-5s Underweight prevalence 2.1a .0061 .00082 .135 .109 .330 933 979 0.004 0.008 Stunting prevalence 2.2a .0507 .01313 .259 3.284 1.812 879 918 0.024 0.077 Wasting prevalence 2.3a .0365 .01362 .373 4.747 2.179 864 901 0.009 0.064 Exclusive breastfeeding under 6 months 2.6 .1330 .00941 .071 .054 .232 78 71 0.114 0.152 Age-appropriate breastfeeding 2.14 .2056 .02619 .127 1.659 1.288 365 396 0.153 0.258 Diarrhoea in the previous 2 weeks – .0963 .01788 .186 3.879 1.969 994 1057 0.061 0.132 Illness with a cough in the previous 2 weeks – .0811 .00945 .116 1.265 1.125 994 1057 0.062 0.100 Oral rehydration therapy with continued feeding 3.8 .6054 .04516 .075 .649 .805 96 77 0.515 0.696 Antibiotic treatment of suspected pneumonia 3.10 .7513 .00000 .000 .000 .000 81 99 0.751 0.751 Support for learning 6.1 .8891 .01688 .019 1.260 1.122 420 437 0.855 0.923 Attendance to early childhood education 6.7 .5329 .02848 .053 1.421 1.192 420 437 0.476 0.590 Birth registration 8.1 .9924 .00590 .006 4.872 2.207 994 1057 0.981 1.000 MONITORING THE SITUATION OF CHILDREN AND WOMEN 273 Table SE.7: Sampling errors: Region 3 — Sumadija and Western Serbia, Serbia, 2010 Standard errors, coefficients of variation, design effects (deff), square root of design effects (deft) and confidence intervals for selected indicators   MICS Indicator Value (r) Standard error (se) Coeffi- cient of variation (se/r) Design effect (deff) Square root of design effect (deft) Weigh- ted count Un- weighted count Confidence limits r – 2se r + 2se HOUSEHOLD MEMBERS Use of improved drinking water sources 4.1 .9946 .00241 .002 1.934 1.391 5969 1788 0.990 0.999 Use of improved sanitation facilities 4.3 .9593 .00624 .007 1.786 1.336 5969 1788 0.947 0.972 Secondary school net attendance ratio (adjusted) 7.5 .8967 .01771 .020 .728 .853 263 216 0.861 0.932 Prevalence of children with at least one parent dead 9.18 .0138 .00457 .332 3.098 1.760 1125 2015 0.005 0.023 Violent discipline 8.5 .6674 .02338 .035 2.241 1.497 808 911 0.621 0.714 WOMEN Pregnant women – .0155 .00329 .213 1.117 1.057 1517 1571 0.009 0.022 Early childbearing 5.2 .0330 .01402 .424 1.156 1.075 184 189 0.005 0.061 Contraceptive prevalence 5.3 .5651 .02445 .043 2.933 1.712 969 1207 0.516 0.614 Unmet need 5.4 .0787 .01017 .129 1.721 1.312 969 1207 0.058 0.099 Antenatal care coverage — at least once by skilled personnel 5.5a .9712 .01403 .014 2.388 1.545 144 340 0.943 0.999 Antenatal care coverage — at least four times by any provider 5.5b .9154 .01577 .017 1.089 1.044 144 340 0.884 0.947 Skilled attendant at delivery 5.7 1.0000 .00000 .000 na na 144 340 1.000 1.000 Institutional deliveries 5.8 1.0000 .00000 .000 na na 144 340 1.000 1.000 Caesarean section 5.9 .2662 .02969 .112 1.530 1.237 144 340 0.207 0.326 Literacy rate among young women 7.1 .9875 .00887 .009 2.041 1.429 392 321 0.970 1.000 Marriage before age 18 8.7 .0928 .01203 .130 2.473 1.572 1309 1439 0.069 0.117 Comprehensive knowledge about HIV prevention among young people 9.2 .4561 .03809 .084 1.871 1.368 392 321 0.380 0.532 Knowledge of mother-to-child transmission of HIV 9.3 .7521 .01951 .026 3.206 1.790 1517 1571 0.713 0.791 Accepting attitudes towards people living with HIV 9.4 .1118 .01145 .102 2.044 1.430 1495 1550 0.089 0.135 Women who have been tested for HIV and know the results 9.6 .0068 .00296 .435 2.033 1.426 1517 1571 0.001 0.013 Sexually active young women who have been tested for HIV and know the results 9.7 .0123 .01043 .845 1.813 1.346 197 204 0.000 0.033 Sex before age 15 among young women 9.11 .0070 .00637 .906 1.858 1.363 392 321 0.000 0.020 Condom use with non-regular partners 9.16 .8575 .02041 .024 .283 .532 133 84 0.817 0.898 MEN Literacy rate among young men 7.1 1.0000 .00000 .000 na na 280 219 1.000 1.000 Marriage before age 18 – .0012 .00010 .083 .003 .053 313 348 0.001 0.001 Comprehensive knowledge about HIV prevention among young people 9.2 .4686 .03314 .071 .962 .981 280 219 0.402 0.535 Accepting attitudes towards people living with HIV – .0805 .01825 .227 1.988 1.410 441 443 0.044 0.117 Sex before age 15 among young men 9.11 .0222 .01529 .688 2.347 1.532 280 219 0.000 0.053 Condom use with non-regular partners 9.16 .7435 .01863 .025 .209 .457 158 116 0.706 0.781 UNDER-5s Underweight prevalence 2.1a .0103 .00641 .622 3.242 1.801 694 805 0.000 0.023 Stunting prevalence 2.2a .0555 .00828 .149 .960 .980 639 736 0.039 0.072 Wasting prevalence 2.3a .0152 .00192 .126 .179 .423 632 725 0.011 0.019 Exclusive breastfeeding under 6 months 2.6 .1244 .00653 .052 .027 .163 67 69 0.111 0.137 Age-appropriate breastfeeding 2.14 .1876 .01992 .106 .947 .973 326 365 0.148 0.227 Diarrhoea in the previous 2 weeks – .0642 .00726 .113 .885 .941 905 1009 0.050 0.079 Illness with a cough in the previous 2 weeks – .0567 .00987 .174 1.835 1.355 905 1009 0.037 0.076 Oral rehydration therapy with continued feeding 3.8 .6137 .02649 .043 .198 .445 58 68 0.561 0.667 Antibiotic treatment of suspected pneumonia 3.10 .8444 .01592 .019 .118 .343 51 62 0.813 0.876 Support for learning 6.1 .9790 .00431 .004 .377 .614 380 420 0.970 0.988 Attendance to early childhood education 6.7 .3418 .02845 .083 1.508 1.228 380 420 0.285 0.399 Birth registration 8.1 .9928 .00024 .000 .008 .091 905 1009 0.992 0.993 MULTIPLE INDICATOR CLUSTER SURVEY 2010274 Table SE.8: Sampling errors: Region 4 — Southern and Eastern Serbia, Serbia, 2010 Standard errors, coefficients of variation, design effects (deff), square root of design effects (deft) and confidence intervals for selected indicators MICS Indicator Value (r) Standard error (se) Coeffi- cient of variation (se/r) Design effect (deff) Square root of design effect (deft) Weigh- ted count Un- weighted count Confidence limits r – 2se r + 2se HOUSEHOLD MEMBERS Use of improved drinking water sources 4.1 .9970 .00164 .002 1.279 1.131 5305 1405 0.994 1.000 Use of improved sanitation facilities 4.3 .9815 .00561 .006 2.428 1.558 5305 1405 0.970 0.993 Secondary school net attendance ratio (adjusted) 7.5 .8711 .02343 .027 .806 .898 242 166 0.824 0.918 Prevalence of children with at least one parent dead 9.18 .0147 .00700 .475 5.038 2.245 1083 1495 0.001 0.029 Violent discipline 8.5 .6476 .02440 .038 1.818 1.348 772 698 0.599 0.696 WOMEN Pregnant women – .0253 .00538 .212 1.458 1.208 1351 1245 0.015 0.036 Early childbearing 5.2 .0572 .01967 .344 1.270 1.127 186 178 0.018 0.097 Contraceptive prevalence 5.3 .6086 .02509 .041 2.575 1.605 946 975 0.558 0.659 Unmet need 5.4 .0648 .01082 .167 1.879 1.371 946 975 0.043 0.086 Antenatal care coverage — at least once by skilled personnel 5.5a .9955 .00176 .002 .191 .437 146 274 0.992 0.999 Antenatal care coverage — at least four times by any provider 5.5b .9719 .00574 .006 .329 .573 146 274 0.960 0.983 Skilled attendant at delivery 5.7 .9947 .00179 .002 .166 .407 146 274 0.991 0.998 Institutional deliveries 5.8 .9941 .00252 .003 .294 .543 146 274 0.989 0.999 Caesarean section 5.9 .2801 .04025 .144 2.194 1.481 146 274 0.200 0.361 Literacy rate among young women 7.1 .9918 .00593 .006 1.173 1.083 333 272 0.980 1.000 Marriage before age 18 8.7 .0980 .01285 .131 2.150 1.466 1204 1151 0.072 0.124 Comprehensive knowledge about HIV prevention among young people 9.2 .5984 .03336 .056 1.255 1.120 333 272 0.532 0.665 Knowledge of mother-to-child transmission of HIV 9.3 .6499 .02007 .031 2.201 1.484 1351 1245 0.610 0.690 Accepting attitudes towards people living with HIV 9.4 .0861 .01204 .140 2.268 1.506 1341 1232 0.062 0.110 Women who have been tested for HIV and know the results 9.6 .0115 .00446 .386 2.166 1.472 1351 1245 0.003 0.020 Sexually active young women who have been tested for HIV and know the results 9.7 .0105 .00770 .731 1.035 1.018 185 183 0.000 0.026 Sex before age 15 among young women 9.11 .0115 .00627 .546 .939 .969 333 272 0.000 0.024 Condom use with non-regular partners 9.16 .7290 .01508 .021 .070 .265 109 62 0.699 0.759 MEN Literacy rate among young men 7.1 .9928 .00447 .005 .527 .726 242 189 0.984 1.000 Marriage before age 18 – .0107 .00658 .617 1.238 1.112 274 303 0.000 0.024 Comprehensive knowledge about HIV prevention among young people 9.2 .4944 .02989 .060 .672 .820 242 189 0.435 0.554 Accepting attitudes towards people living with HIV – .0663 .01788 .270 2.009 1.417 407 390 0.031 0.102 Sex before age 15 among young men 9.11 .0207 .00973 .470 .878 .937 242 189 0.001 0.040 Condom use with non-regular partners 9.16 .8404 .01629 .019 .186 .431 127 95 0.808 0.873 UNDER-5s Underweight prevalence 2.1a .0090 .00282 .312 .595 .771 794 670 0.003 0.015 Stunting prevalence 2.2a .0811 .01464 .181 1.587 1.260 661 553 0.052 0.110 Wasting prevalence 2.3a .0408 .00994 .244 1.381 1.175 656 547 0.021 0.061 Exclusive breastfeeding under 6 months 2.6 .1352 .01908 .141 .193 .439 69 63 0.097 0.173 Age-appropriate breastfeeding 2.14 .1845 .03711 .201 2.664 1.632 328 292 0.110 0.259 Diarrhoea in the previous 2 weeks – .0516 .01293 .250 2.437 1.561 836 715 0.026 0.077 Illness with a cough in the previous 2 weeks – .0223 .00769 .344 1.934 1.391 836 715 0.007 0.038 Oral rehydration therapy with continued feeding 3.8 * * * * * 43 38 * * Antibiotic treatment of suspected pneumonia 3.10 * * * * * 19 17 * * Support for learning 6.1 .9843 .00121 .001 .027 .165 326 288 0.982 0.987 Attendance to early childhood education 6.7 .2961 .03682 .124 1.867 1.366 326 288 0.222 0.370 Birth registration 8.1 .9974 .00097 .001 .258 .507 836 715 0.995 0.999 MONITORING THE SITUATION OF CHILDREN AND WOMEN 275 The sample of respondents selected in the Serbia Multiple The sample of respondents selected in the Serbia Multiple Indicator Cluster Survey is only one of the samples that Indicator Cluster Survey is only one of the samples that could have been selected from the same population, using could have been selected from the same population, using the same design and size. Each of these samples would the same design and size. Each of these samples would yield results that differ somewhat from the results of the yield results that differ somewhat from the results of the actual sample selected. Sampling errors are a measure actual sample selected. Sampling errors are a measure of the variability between the estimates from all possible of the variability between the estimates from all possible samples. The extent of variability is not known exactly, but samples. The extent of variability is not known exactly, but can be estimated statistically from the survey data.can be estimated statistically from the survey data. The following sampling error measures are presented in The following sampling error measures are presented in this appendix for each of the selected indicators:this appendix for each of the selected indicators:  Standard error ( Standard error (sese): Sampling errors are usually ): Sampling errors are usually measured in terms of standard errors for particular measured in terms of standard errors for particular indicators (means, proportions etc). Standard error is indicators (means, proportions etc). Standard error is the square root of the variance of the estimate. The the square root of the variance of the estimate. The Taylor linearization method is used for the estimation Taylor linearization method is used for the estimation of standard errors.of standard errors.  Coefficient of variation ( Coefficient of variation (se/rse/r) is the ratio of the ) is the ratio of the standard error to the value of the indicator, and is a standard error to the value of the indicator, and is a measure of the relative sampling error.measure of the relative sampling error.  Design effect ( Design effect (deffdeff ) is the ratio of the actual variance ) is the ratio of the actual variance of an indicator, under the sampling method used of an indicator, under the sampling method used in the survey, to the variance calculated under the in the survey, to the variance calculated under the assumption of simple random sampling. The square assumption of simple random sampling. The square root of the design effect (root of the design effect (deftdeft) is used to show the ) is used to show the efficiency of the sample design in relation to the efficiency of the sample design in relation to the precision. A deft value of 1.0 indicates that the sample precision. A deft value of 1.0 indicates that the sample design is as efficient as a simple random sample, design is as efficient as a simple random sample, while a deft value above 1.0 indicates the increase in while a deft value above 1.0 indicates the increase in the standard error due to the use of a more complex the standard error due to the use of a more complex sample design.sample design. Appendix CAppendix C Estimates of Sampling ErrorsEstimates of Sampling Errors for the Roma Settlements Samplefor the Roma Settlements Sample  Confidence limits are calculated to show the interval Confidence limits are calculated to show the interval within which the true value for the population can be within which the true value for the population can be reasonably assumed to fall, with a specified level of reasonably assumed to fall, with a specified level of confidence. For any given statistic calculated from the confidence. For any given statistic calculated from the survey, the value of that statistic will fall within a range survey, the value of that statistic will fall within a range of plus or minus two times the standard error (of plus or minus two times the standard error (r + 2ser + 2se or or r – 2ser – 2se) of the statistic in 95 percent of all possible ) of the statistic in 95 percent of all possible samples of identical size and design. samples of identical size and design. For the calculation of sampling errors from MICS data, For the calculation of sampling errors from MICS data, SPSS Version 18 Complex Samples module has been SPSS Version 18 Complex Samples module has been used. The results are shown in the tables that follow. used. The results are shown in the tables that follow. In addition to the sampling error measures described In addition to the sampling error measures described above, the tables also include weighted and unweighted above, the tables also include weighted and unweighted counts of denominators for each indicator. The weighted counts of denominators for each indicator. The weighted counts are based on the normalized weights, so the counts are based on the normalized weights, so the weighted count at the national level is equal to the weighted count at the national level is equal to the unweighted count. Given that the average relative weight unweighted count. Given that the average relative weight is 1, in comparing the weighted count for each domain is 1, in comparing the weighted count for each domain to the corresponding unweighted count, it is possible to to the corresponding unweighted count, it is possible to determine whether the weights for the domain are above determine whether the weights for the domain are above or below average. A relative weight higher than 1 means or below average. A relative weight higher than 1 means that the domain was over-sampled in relative terms.that the domain was over-sampled in relative terms. Sampling errors are calculated for indicators of primary Sampling errors are calculated for indicators of primary interest, for the national level and for urban and rural areas. interest, for the national level and for urban and rural areas. Five of the selected indicators are based on household Five of the selected indicators are based on household members, 18 are based on women, 8 are based on men and members, 18 are based on women, 8 are based on men and 12 are based on children under 5. All indicators presented 12 are based on children under 5. All indicators presented here are in the form of proportions. Table SE.1R shows the here are in the form of proportions. Table SE.1R shows the list of indicators for which sampling errors are calculated, list of indicators for which sampling errors are calculated, including the base population (denominator) for each including the base population (denominator) for each indicator. Tables SE.2R to SE.4R show the calculated indicator. Tables SE.2R to SE.4R show the calculated sampling errors for selected domains.sampling errors for selected domains. MONITORING THE SITUATION OF CHILDREN AND WOMEN 275 MULTIPLE INDICATOR CLUSTER SURVEY 2010276 Table SE.1R: Indicators selected for sampling error calculations, Roma Settlements, 2010  List of indicators selected for sampling error calculations, and base populations (denominators) for each indicator MICS4 INDICATOR BASE POPULATION HOUSEHOLD MEMBERS 4.1 Use of improved drinking water sources All household members 4.3 Use of improved sanitation facilities All household members 7.5 Secondary school net attendance ratio (adjusted) Children of secondary school age 9.18 Prevalence of children with at least one parent dead Children age 0–17 years 8.5 Violent discipline Children age 2–14 years WOMEN – Pregnant women Women age 15–49 years 5.2 Early childbearing Women age 20–24 years 5.3 Contraceptive prevalence Women age 15–49 years who are currently married or in union 5.4 Unmet need Women age 15–49 years who are currently married or in union 5.5a Antenatal care coverage — at least once by skilled personnel Women age 15–49 years with a live birth in the 2 years preceding the survey 5.5b Antenatal care coverage — at least four times by any provider Women age 15–49 years with a live birth in the 2 years preceding the survey 5.7 Skilled attendant at delivery Women age 15–49 years with a live birth in the 2 years