SERBIA MULTIPLE INDICATOR CLUSTER SURVEY 2014 AND SERBIA ROMA SETTLEMENTS MULTIPLE INDICATOR CLUSTER SURVEY 2014

Publication date: 2014

SERBIA MULTIPLE INDICATOR CLUSTER SURVEY 2014 AND SERBIA ROMA SETTLEMENTS MULTIPLE INDICATOR CLUSTER SURVEY 2014 FINAL REPORTS December, 2014 The 2014 Serbia Multiple Indicator Cluster Survey (MICS) and 2014 Serbia Roma Settlements Multiple Indicator Cluster Survey were carried out in 2014 by the Statistical Office of the Republic of Serbia as part of the global MICS programme. Technical and financial support was provided by the United Nations Children’s Fund (UNICEF). The global MICS programme was developed by UNICEF in the 1990s as an international household survey programme to support countries in the collection of internationally comparable data on a wide range of indicators on the situation of children and women. MICS surveys measure key indicators that allow countries to generate data for use in policies and programmes, and to monitor progress towards the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) and other internationally agreed upon commitments. Suggested citation Statistical Office of the Republic of Serbia and UNICEF. 2014. Serbia Multiple Indicator Cluster Survey and Serbia Roma Settlements Multiple Indicator Cluster Survey, 2014, Final Reports. Belgrade, Serbia: Statistical Office of the Republic of Serbia and UNICEF. Publisher UNICEF Belgrade For publisher Michel Saint-Lot Representative Proofreading Chris Prickett Design Rastko Toholj Cover photo ©UNICEF SERBIA/Shubuckl Printed by Radunic, Belgrade Print run 300 ISBN 978-86-82471-96-7 Published in December, 2014 Revised in May, 2015 Monitoring the situation of children and women i Summary Table of Survey Implementation and the Survey Population 2014 Serbia MICS and 2014 Serbia Roma Settlements MICS Survey implementation Sample frame Updated Population census 2011 October 2013 Questionnaires Household Women (age 15-49) Children under five Questionnaire for Vaccination Records at Health Facility Interviewer training January 2014 Fieldwork February — April 2014 Survey sample — Serbia Survey sample — Serbia Roma Settlements Households Sampled Occupied Interviewed Response rate (Percent) 7351 6959 6191 89.0 Households Sampled Occupied Interviewed Response rate (Percent) 1976 1803 1743 96.7 Women Eligible for interviews Interviewed Response rate (Percent) 4997 4713 94.3 Women Eligible for interviews Interviewed Response rate (Percent) 2162 2081 96.3 Children under five Eligible Mothers/caretakers interviewed Response rate (Percent) 2773 2720 98.1 Children under five Eligible Mothers/caretakers interviewed Response rate (Percent) 1556 1515 97.4 Survey population Serbia Serbia Roma Settlements Average household size 3.1 Average household size 4.9 Percentage of population under Age 5 Age 18 4.7 18.1 Percentage of population under Age 5 Age 18 12.5 40.2 Percentage of women age 15-49 years with at least one live birth in the last 2 years 8.2 Percentage of women age 15-49 years with at least one live birth in the last 2 years 19.4 Percentage of population living in Urban areas Other areas1 Belgrade Vojvodina Sumadija and Western Serbia Southern and Eastern Serbia 59.0 41.0 22.6 26.6 27.5 23.3 Percentage of population living in Urban areas Other areas 73.7 26.3 1 Official statistics in Serbia do not include a specific definition for rural settlements. Instead, an “administrative-legal” criteria is applied that designates settlements as either “Urban” or “Other”. Urban settlements are recognised as such by an act of the local self-government, with all other settlements falling into the category of “Other”. ii Serbia Multiple Indicator Cluster Survey 2014 and Serbia Roma Settlements Multiple Indicator Cluster Survey 2014 Housing characteristics Serbia Serbia Roma Settlements Percentage of households with Electricity Finished floor Finished roofing Finished walls 99.7 99.0 98.8 98.2 Percentage of households with Electricity Finished floor Finished roofing Finished walls 89.7 96.4 93.3 95.7 Mean number of persons per room used for sleeping 1.62 Mean number of persons per room used for sleeping 2.97 Household or personal assets Serbia Serbia Roma Settlements Percentage of households that own A refrigerator An electrical stove Washing machine PC/Laptop Internet Agricultural land Farm animals/livestock 98.3 95.3 93.6 63.6 57.5 41.3 26.8 Percentage of households that own A refrigerator An electrical stove Washing machine PC/Laptop Internet Agricultural land Farm animals/livestock 75.2 60.2 57.6 42.1 34.8 2.6 9.3 Percentage of households where at least a member has or owns a Mobile phone Car Bank account 90.7 59.9 83.0 Percentage of households where at least a member has or owns a Mobile phone Car Bank account 80.9 22.3 25.7 Monitoring the situation of children and women iii Summary Table of Findings2 Multiple Indicator Cluster Surveys (MICS) and Millennium Development Goals (MDG) Indicators, 2014 Serbia MICS and 2014 Serbia Roma Settlements MICS Child mortality Early childhood mortalityA MICS Indicator Indicator Description Serbia RomaSettlementsB 1.2 MDG 4.2 Infant mortality rate Probability of dying between birth and the first birthday 12.8 1.5 MDG 4.1 Under-five mortality rate Probability of dying between birth and the fifth birthday 14.4 A Child mortality was calculated only for the 2014 Serbia Roma Settlements MICS. Rates refer approximately to the first quarter of 2012. The East Model was assumed to approximate the age pattern of mortality in the 2014 Serbia Roma Settlements MICS. B Indicator values are per 1000 live births and refer to the one-year period before the survey Nutrition Nutritional status MICS Indicator Indicator Description Serbia Serbia Roma Settlements 2.1a 2.1b MDG 1.8 Underweight prevalence (a) Moderate and severe (b) Severe Percentage of children under age 5 who fall below (a) minus two standard deviations (moderate and severe) (b) minus three standard deviations (severe) of the median weight for age of the WHO standard 1.8 0.2 9.5 1.9 2.2a 2.2b Stunting prevalence (a) Moderate and severe (b) Severe Percentage of children under age 5 who fall below (a) minus two standard deviations (moderate and severe) (b) minus three standard deviations (severe) of the median height for age of the WHO standard 6.0 2.3 18.5 5.3 2.3a 2.3b Wasting prevalence (a) Moderate and severe (b) Severe Percentage of children under age 5 who fall below (a) minus two standard deviations (moderate and severe) (b) minus three standard deviations (severe) of the median weight for height of the WHO standard 3.9 1.1 4.8 1.9 2.4 Overweight prevalence Percentage of children under age 5 who are above two standard deviations of the median weight for height of the WHO standard 13.9 5.1 Breastfeeding and infant feeding 2.5 Children ever breastfed Percentage of women with a live birth in the last 2 years who breastfed their last live-born child at any time 90.4 94.4 2.6 Early initiation of breastfeeding Percentage of women with a live birth in the last 2 years who put their last newborn to the breast within one hour of birth 50.8 69.1 2.7 Exclusive breastfeeding under 6 months Percentage of infants under 6 months of age who are exclusively breastfed 12.8 13.0 2.8 Predominant breastfeeding under 6 months Percentage of infants under 6 months of age who received breast milk as the predominant source of nourishment during the previous day 47.2 60.6 2 See Appendix E for a detailed description of MICS indicators iv Serbia Multiple Indicator Cluster Survey 2014 and Serbia Roma Settlements Multiple Indicator Cluster Survey 2014 2.9 Continued breastfeeding at 1 year Percentage of children age 12-15 months who received breast milk during the previous day 24.6 62.0 2.10 Continued breastfeeding at 2 years Percentage of children age 20-23 months who received breast milk during the previous day 8.9 33.3 2.11 Median duration of breastfeeding The age in months when 50 percent of children age 0-35 months did not receive breast milk during the previous day 10.5 15.7 2.12 Age-appropriate breastfeeding Percentage of children age 0-23 months appropriately fed during the previous day 23.4 42.9 2.13 Introduction of solid, semi-solid or soft foods Percentage of infants age 6-8 months who received solid, semi-solid or soft foods during the previous day 96.6 89.6 2.14 Milk feeding frequency for non- breastfed children Percentage of non-breastfed children age 6-23 months who received at least 2 milk feedings during the previous day 84.3 62.1 2.15 Minimum meal frequency Percentage of children age 6-23 months who received solid, semi-solid and soft foods (plus milk feeds for non-breastfed children) the minimum number of times or more during the previous day 94.4 71.7 2.16 Minimum dietary diversity Percentage of children age 6-23 months who received foods from 4 or more food groups during the previous day 89.6 51.3 2.17a 2.17b Minimum acceptable diet (a) Percentage of breastfed children age 6-23 months who had at least the minimum dietary diversity and the minimum meal frequency during the previous day (b) Percentage of non-breastfed children age 6-23 months who received at least 2 milk feedings and had at least the minimum dietary diversity not including milk feeds and the minimum meal frequency during the previous day 68.9 73.0 26.8 36.5 2.18 Bottle feeding Percentage of children age 0-23 months who were fed with a bottle during the previous day 83.1 72.0 Low-birthweight 2.20 Low-birthweight infants Percentage of most recent live births in the last 2 years weighing below 2500 grams at birth 5.1 14.7 2.21 Infants weighed at birth Percentage of most recent live births in the last 2 years who were weighed at birth 98.7 98.6 Child health Vaccinations MICS Indicator Indicator Description Serbia Serbia Roma Settlements 3.1 Tuberculosis immunization coverage Percentage of children age 12-23 months who received BCG vaccine by their first birthday 98.0 94.3 3.2 Polio immunization coverage Percentage of children age 12-23 months who received the third dose of OPV vaccine (OPV3) by their first birthday 86.4 61.0 3.3 Diphtheria, pertussis and tetanus (DPT) immunization coverage Percentage of children age 12-23 months who received the third dose of DPT vaccine (DPT3) by their first birthday 87.4 64.5 3.4 MDG 4.3 Measles immunization coverage Percentage of children age 24-35 months who received measles vaccine by their second birthday 93.4 63.3 3.5 Hepatitis B immunization coverage Percentage of children age 12-23 months who received the third dose of Hepatitis B vaccine (HepB3) by their first birthday 91.3 67.8 3.6 Haemophilus influenzae type B (Hib) immunization coverage Percentage of children age 12-23 months who received the third dose of Hib vaccine (Hib3) by their first birthday 80.4 49.6 3.8 Full immunization coverage Percentage of children age 24-35 months who received all vaccinations recommended in the national immunization schedule by their first birthday (by their second birthday for measles) 70.5 12.7 - Full immunization coverage at any time before the survey Percentage of children age 24-35 months who received all vaccinations recommended in the national immunization schedule at any time before the survey 80.6 44.1 Solid fuel use 3.15 Use of solid fuels for cooking Percentage of household members in households that use solid fuels as the primary source of domestic energy to cook 34.2 81.9 Monitoring the situation of children and women v Water and sanitation MICS Indicator Indicator Description Serbia Serbia Roma Settlements 4.1 MDG 7.8 Use of improved drinking water sources Percentage of household members using improved sources of drinking water 99.5 97.7 4.2 Water treatment Percentage of household members in households using unimproved drinking water who use an appropriate treatment method 3.3 4.1 4.3 MDG 7.9 Use of improved sanitation Percentage of household members using improved sanitation facilities which are not shared 96.9 72.9 Reproductive health Contraception and unmet need MICS Indicator Indicator Description Serbia Serbia Roma Settlements - Total fertility rate Total fertility rate for women age 15-49 years 1.6 (3.1) 5.1 MDG 5.4 Adolescent birth rate Age-specific fertility rate for women age 15-19 years 22 157 5.2 Early childbearing Percentage of women age 20-24 years who had at least one live birth before age 18 1.4 38.3 5.3 MDG 5.3 Contraceptive prevalence rate Percentage of women age 15-49 years currently married or in union who are using (or whose partner is using) a (modern or traditional) contraceptive method 58.4 61.2 5.4 MDG 5.6 Unmet need Percentage of women age 15-49 years who are currently married or in union who are fecund and want to space their births or limit the number of children they have and who are not currently using contraception 14.9 13.9 SS3 Lifetime experience with abortion Percentage of women age 15-49 years who had at least one induced abortion 14.6 30.6 Maternal and newborn health 5.5a 5.5b MDG 5.5 MDG 5.5 Antenatal care coverage Percentage of women age 15-49 years with a live birth in the last 2 years who were attended during their last pregnancy that led to a live birth (a) at least once by skilled health personnel (b) at least four times by any provider 98.3 93.9 95.5 74.4 5.6 Content of antenatal care Percentage of women age 15-49 years with a live birth in the last 2 years who had their blood pressure measured and gave urine and blood samples during the last pregnancy that led to a live birth 93.6 86.9 5.7 MDG 5.2 Skilled attendant at delivery Percentage of women age 15-49 years with a live birth in the last 2 years who were attended by skilled health personnel during their most recent live birth 98.4 98.6 5.8 Institutional deliveries Percentage of women age 15-49 years with a live birth in the last 2 years whose most recent live birth was delivered in a health facility 98.3 98.5 5.9 Caesarean section Percentage of women age 15-49 years whose most recent live birth in the last 2 years was delivered by caesarean section 28.8 12.6 ( ) Figures that are based on 125-249 unweighted person-years of exposure. Child development MICS Indicator Indicator Description Serbia Serbia Roma Settlement 6.1 Attendance to early childhood education Percentage of children age 36-59 months who are attending an early childhood education programme 50.2 5.7 6.2 Support for learning Percentage of children age 36-59 months with whom an adult has engaged in four or more activities to promote learning and school readiness in the last 3 days 95.5 68.0 6.3 Father’s support for learning Percentage of children age 36-59 months whose biological father has engaged in four or more activities to promote learning and school readiness in the last 3 days 36.5 17.3 6.4 Mother’s support for learning Percentage of children age 36-59 months whose biological mother has engaged in four or more activities to promote learning and school readiness in the last 3 days 89.6 48.3 6.5 Availability of children’s books Percentage of children under age 5 who have three or more children’s books 71.9 11.9 6.6 Availability of playthings Percentage of children under age 5 who play with two or more types of playthings 75.0 53.2 3 SS (survey-specific) denotes an indicator calculated by introduction of a non-standard module or question(s) to this survey or by applying a non-standard calculation method. vi Serbia Multiple Indicator Cluster Survey 2014 and Serbia Roma Settlements Multiple Indicator Cluster Survey 2014 Child development MICS Indicator Indicator Description Serbia Serbia Roma Settlement 6.7 Inadequate care Percentage of children under age 5 left alone or in the care of another child younger than 10 years of age for more than one hour at least once in the last week 1.3 3.6 6.8 Early child development index Percentage of children age 36-59 months who are developmentally on track in at least three of the following four domains: literacy-numeracy, physical, social-emotional, and learning 95.1 83.3 Literacy and education MICS Indicator Indicator Description Serbia Serbia Roma Settlements 7.1 MDG 2.3 Literacy rate among young women Percentage of young women age 15-24 years who are able to read a short simple statement about everyday life or who attended secondary or higher education 99.1 80.1 7.2 School readiness Percentage of children in first grade of primary school who attended pre-school during the previous school year 98.1 79.9 7.3 Net intake rate in primary education Percentage of children of school-entry age who enter the first grade of primary school 97.0 69.1 Indicators according to the ISCED classification4 7.4 MDG 2.1 Primary school net attendance ratio (adjusted) Percentage of children of primary school age currently attending primary or secondary school 98.8 85.8 7.5 Secondary school net attendance ratio (adjusted) Percentage of children of secondary school age currently attending secondary school or higher 93.5 51.2 SS Lower secondary school net attendance ratio (adjusted) Percentage of children of lower secondary school age currently attending lower secondary school or higher 96.2 67.1 SS Upper secondary school net attendance ratio (adjusted) Percentage of children of upper secondary school age currently attending upper secondary school or higher 89.1 21.6 7.6 MDG 2.2 Children reaching last grade of primary Percentage of children entering the first grade of primary school who eventually reach last grade 99.8 96.5 7.7 Primary completion rate Number of children attending the last grade of primary school (excluding repeaters) divided by number of children of primary school completion age (age appropriate to final grade of primary school) 92.4 115.7 7.8 Transition rate to secondary school Number of children attending the last grade of primary school during the previous school year who are in the first grade of secondary school during the current school year divided by number of children attending the last grade of primary school during the previous school year 99.6 92.6 7.9 MDG 3.1 Gender parity index (primary school) Primary school net attendance ratio (adjusted) for girls divided by primary school net attendance ratio (adjusted) for boys 1.00 1.03 7.10 MDG 3.1 Gender parity index (secondary school) Secondary school net attendance ratio (adjusted) for girls divided by secondary school net attendance ratio (adjusted) for boys 1.04 0.87 SS Gender parity index (lower secondary school) Lower secondary school net attendance ratio (adjusted) for girls divided by lower secondary school net attendance ratio (adjusted) for boys 0.99 1.00 SS Gender parity index (upper secondary school) Upper secondary school net attendance ratio (adjusted) for girls divided by upper secondary school net attendance ratio (adjusted) for boys 1.08 0.53 Indicators according to the national education system classification5 7.S4 Primary school net attendance ratio (adjusted) Percentage of children of primary school age currently attending primary or secondary school 98.5 84.9 7.S5 Secondary school net attendance ratio (adjusted) Percentage of children of secondary school age currently attending secondary school or higher 89.1 21.6 4 The classification of primary school and secondary school education in the Republic of Serbia according to ISCED 2011 comprises the following: (i) ISCED 1 — primary school, corresponding to grades 1-4 of primary school (typically for ages 6-9 years); (ii) ISCED 2 — lower secondary school, corresponding to grades 5-8 of primary school within the national education system (typically for ages 10-13 years); and (iii) ISCED 3 — upper secondary school, corresponding to grades 1-4 of secondary school within the national education system (typically for ages 14-18 years). For global reporting purposes, lower secondary school and upper secondary school are combined as secondary school education. Age is adjusted to take into account age eligibility criteria for starting primary school. Since age eligibility criteria for starting primary school changed in Serbia in 2006, separate calculations were applied for children born in 1998 or earlier and those born afterwards. For the first group, the appropriate age at the start of primary school refers to the age in the 2013 calendar year, while for the second group, adjusted age is the age of the child (in completed years) at the end of February 2013. 5 The national education system classification comprises 8 grades of obligatory primary school education (typically for ages 6-13 years; children who turn 6 by the end of February of the current school year are required to enrol in first grade of primary school), and 4 grades of secondary school education (typically for ages 14-18 years). Age is adjusted to take into account age eligibility criteria for starting primary school. Since age eligibility criteria for starting primary school changed in Serbia in 2006, separate calculations were applied for children born in 1998 or earlier and those born afterwards. For the first group, the appropriate age at the start of primary school refers to the age in the 2013 calendar year, while for the second group, adjusted age is the age of the child (in completed years) at the end of February 2013. Monitoring the situation of children and women vii 7.S6 Children reaching last grade of primary Percentage of children entering the first grade of primary school who eventually reach last grade 97.9 77.0 7.S7 Primary completion rate Number of children attending the last grade of primary school (excluding repeaters) divided by number of children of primary school completion age (age appropriate to final grade of primary school) 93.4 64.0 7.S8 Transition rate to secondary school Number of children attending the last grade of primary school during the previous school year who are in the first grade of secondary school during the current school year divided by number of children attending the last grade of primary school during the previous school year 96.3 58.7 7.S9 Gender parity index (primary school) Primary school net attendance ratio (adjusted) for girls divided by primary school net attendance ratio (adjusted) for boys 0.99 1.01 7.S10 Gender parity index (secondary school) Secondary school net attendance ratio (adjusted) for girls divided by secondary school net attendance ratio (adjusted) for boys 1.08 0.53 Child protection Birth registration MICS Indicator Indicator Description Serbia Serbia Roma Settlements 8.1 Birth registration Percentage of children under age 5 whose births are reported registered 99.4 95.3 Child labour 8.2 Child labour Percentage of children age 5-17 years who are involved in child labour 9.5 4.7 Child discipline 8.3 Violent discipline Percentage of children age 1-14 years who experienced psychological aggression or physical punishment during the last one month 43.1 65.9 Early marriage 8.4 Marriage before age 15 Percentage of women age 15-49 years who were first married or in union before age 15 0.8 16.9 8.5 Marriage before age 18 Percentage of women age 20-49 years who were first married or in union before age 18 6.8 57.0 8.6 Young women age 15-19 years currently married or in union Percentage of young women age 15-19 years who are married or in union 3.5 42.7 8.8a 8.8b Spousal age difference Percentage of young women who are married or in union and whose spouse is 10 or more years older, (a) among women age 15-19 years, (b) among women age 20-24 years (9.1) 10.3 6.3 2.6 Attitudes towards domestic violence 8.12 Attitudes towards domestic violence Percentage of women age 15-49 years who state that a husband is justified in hitting or beating his wife in at least one of the following circumstances: (1) she goes out without telling him, (2) she neglects the children, (3) she argues with him, (4) she refuses sex with him, (5) she burns the food 3.8 37.0 Children’s living arrangements 8.13 Children’s living arrangements Percentage of children age 0-17 years living with neither biological parent 0.7 3.4 8.14 Prevalence of children with one or both parents dead Percentage of children age 0-17 years with one or both biological parents dead 1.7 2.3 8.15 Children with at least one parent living abroad Percentage of children 0-17 years with at least one biological parent living abroad 1.2 1.8 ( ) Figures that are based on 25-49 unweighted cases Subjective well-being MICS Indicator Indicator Description Serbia Serbia Roma Settlements 11.1 Life satisfaction Percentage of young women age 15-24 years who are very or somewhat satisfied with their life, overall 93.1 82.4 11.2 Happiness Percentage of young women age 15-24 years who are very or somewhat happy 93.6 86.7 11.3 Perception of a better life Percentage of young women age 15-24 years whose life improved during the last one year, and who expect that their life will be better after one year 29.1 27.4 viii Serbia Multiple Indicator Cluster Survey 2014 and Serbia Roma Settlements Multiple Indicator Cluster Survey 2014 TABLE OF TABLE OF CONTENTSCONTENTS Summary Table of Survey Implementation and the Survey Population, 2014 Serbia MICS and 2014 Serbia Roma Settlements MICS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . i Summary Table of Findings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . iii Table of Contents . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . viii List of Tables . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .x List of Figures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . xiv List of Abbreviations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . xv Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . xvi Executive Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . xvii I. Introduction. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 Background . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1 Survey Objectives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .3 II. Sample and Survey Methodology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 Sample Design for the 2014 Serbia MICS . . . . . . . . . .4 Sample Design for the 2014 Serbia Roma Settlements MICS. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .4 Questionnaires . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .4 Training and Fieldwork. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .6 Data Processing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .6 The Report Structure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .6 How to Read the Tables. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .7 III. Sample Coverage and the Characteristics of Households and Respondents . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 Sample Coverage and the Characteristics of Households and Respondents for Serbia . . . . . . . . .8 Sample Coverage . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 Characteristics of Households . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 Characteristics of Female Respondents and Children Under 5 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 Housing Characteristics, Asset Ownership, and Wealth Quintiles . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 Sample Coverage and the Characteristics of Households and Respondents for Roma Settlements. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 Sample Coverage . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 Characteristics of Households . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 Characteristics of Female Respondents and Children Under 5 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22 Housing Characteristics, Asset Ownership, and Wealth Quintiles . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25 IV. Child Mortality . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28 V. Nutrition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29 Low Birth Weight . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29 Low Birth Weight in Roma Settlements . . . . . . . . . . 31 Nutritional Status . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32 Nutritional Status in Roma Settlements . . . . . . . . . . 35 Breastfeeding and Infant and Young Child Feeding . . . 37 Breastfeeding and Infant and Young Child Feeding in Roma Settlements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47 VI. Child Health. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55 Vaccinations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55 Vaccinations in Roma Settlements . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60 Health Insurance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 65 Health Insurance in Roma Settlements . . . . . . . . . . 66 Care-seeking Behaviour for Acute Respiratory Infections. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 67 Care-seeking Behaviour for Acute Respiratory Infections in Roma Settlements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 69 Solid Fuel Use . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 70 Solid Fuel Use in Roma Settlements . . . . . . . . . . . . 73 VII. Water and Sanitation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 75 Use of Improved Water Sources. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 75 Use of Improved Water Sources in Roma Settlements . . 82 Use of Improved Sanitation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 87 Use of Improved Sanitation in Roma Settlements . . . . 92 VIII. Reproductive Health . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 97 Fertility . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 97 Fertility in Roma Settlements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 101 Contraception . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 103 Contraception in Roma Settlements . . . . . . . . . . . 108 Unmet Need . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 114 Unmet Need in Roma Settlements . . . . . . . . . . . . 117 Antenatal Care . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 119 Antenatal Care in Roma Settlements . . . . . . . . . . 126 Assistance at Delivery . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 132 Assistance at Delivery in Roma Settlements . . . . . . 135 Place of Delivery. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 137 Place of Delivery in Roma Settlements . . . . . . . . . . 140 Abortions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 142 Abortions in Roma Settlements. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 144 IX. Early Childhood Development . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 145 Early Childhood Care and Education. . . . . . . . . . . 145 Early Childhood Care and Education in Roma Settlements. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 148 Quality of Care . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 150 Quality of Care in Roma Settlements. . . . . . . . . . . 157 Developmental Status of Children . . . . . . . . . . . . 162 Developmental Status of Children in Roma Settlements. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 164 Monitoring the situation of children and women ix X. Literacy and Education . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 165 Literacy among Young Women . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 165 Literacy among Young Women in Roma Settlements. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 166 School Readiness . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 167 School Readiness in Roma Settlements . . . . . . . . . 172 Primary and Secondary School Participation . . . . . . 178 Primary and Secondary School Participation in Roma Settlements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 189 XI. Child Protection. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 198 Birth Registration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 198 Birth Registration in Roma Settlements. . . . . . . . . 200 Child Labour . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 201 Child Labour in Roma Settlements . . . . . . . . . . . 206 Child Discipline . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 209 Child Discipline in Roma Settlements. . . . . . . . . . 212 Early Marriage . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 214 Early Marriage in Roma Settlements . . . . . . . . . . 218 Attitudes toward Domestic Violence . . . . . . . . . . 221 Attitudes toward Domestic Violence in Roma Settlements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 223 Children’s Living Arrangements and Orphanhood . . 224 Children’s Living Arrangements and Orphanhood in Roma Settlements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 226 Attitudes toward Children with Disabilities . . . . . . 228 Attitudes toward Children with Disabilities in Roma Settlements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 232 XII. Social Protection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .234 Cash Benefit Programmes. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 234 Cash Benefit Programmes in Roma Settlements. . . . 236 Financial Social Assistance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 237 Financial Social Assistance in Roma Settlements . . . 240 Child Allowance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 242 Child Allowance in Roma Settlements . . . . . . . . . 244 Birth Grant . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 246 Birth Grant in Roma Settlements . . . . . . . . . . . . 248 XIII. Subjective Well-being . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 250 Subjective Well-being in Serbia. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 250 Subjective Well-being in Roma Settlements . . . . . . 255 Appendices Appendix A. Sample Design . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 260 Sample Design for the 2014 Serbia MICS Sample . . . . . . 260 Target Population and Survey Population . . . . . . . . . . . 260 Survey Domains and Stratification . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 260 Sampling Procedure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 260 Sample Size and Sample Allocation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 260 Sampling Frame and Selection of Clusters . . . . . . . . . . 262 Listing Activities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 262 Selection of Households . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 263 Calculation of Sample Weights . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 263 Sample Design for the 2014 Serbia Roma Settlements MICS Sample. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 266 Target Population and Survey Population . . . . . . . . . . . 266 Survey Domains and Stratification . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 266 Sampling Procedure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 266 Sample Size and Sample Allocation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 266 Sampling Frame and Selection of Clusters . . . . . . . . . . 268 Listing Activities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 268 Selection of Households . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 268 Calculation of Sample Weights . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 268 Appendix B. List of Personnel Involved in the Surveys . . . . . 271 Appendix C. Estimates of Sampling Errors for the Serbia Sample . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 273 Estimates of Sampling Errors for the 2014 Serbia MICS Sample . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 273 Estimates of Sampling Errors for the 2014 Serbia Roma Settlements MICS Sample . . . . . . . 282 Appendix D. Data Quality Tables . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 287 Data Quality Tables for the 2014 Serbia MICS . . . . . . 287 Data Quality Tables for the 2014 Serbia Roma Settlements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 298 Appendix E. 2014 Serbia MICS and 2014 Serbia Roma Settlements MICS Indicators: Numerators and Denominators . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 308 Appendix F. 2014 Serbia MICS and 2014 Serbia Roma Settlements MICS Questionnaires . . . . . . . . . . . . . 315 Appendix G. Education according to the International Standard Classification (ISCED). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 379 Education in Serbia according to ISCED 2011 . . . . . . 379 Education in Roma Settlements according to ISCED 2011 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 388 x Serbia Multiple Indicator Cluster Survey 2014 and Serbia Roma Settlements Multiple Indicator Cluster Survey 2014 List of Tables Table HH.1: Results of household, women’s and under-5 interviews, Serbia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 Table HH.2: Household age distribution by sex, Serbia . . . . . 9 Table HH.3: Household composition, Serbia . . . . . . . . . . 11 Table HH.4: Women’s background characteristics, Serbia . . 13 Table HH.5: Under-5’s background characteristics, Serbia . . 14 Table HH.6: Housing characteristics, Serbia . . . . . . . . . . 15 Table HH.7: Household and personal assets, Serbia . . . . . . 16 Table HH.8: Wealth quintiles, Serbia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 Table HH.1R: Results of household, women’s and under-5 interviews, Serbia Roma Settlements . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 Table HH.2R: Household age distribution by sex, Serbia Roma Settlements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 Table HH.3R: Household composition, Serbia Roma Settlements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 Table HH.4R: Women’s background characteristics, Serbia Roma Settlements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23 Table HH.5R: Under-5’s background characteristics, Serbia Roma Settlements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24 Table HH.6R: Housing characteristics, Serbia Roma Settlements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25 Table HH.7R: Household and personal assets, Serbia Roma Settlements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26 Table HH.8R: Wealth quintiles, Serbia Roma Settlements . . 27 Table NU.1: Low birth weight infants, Serbia . . . . . . . . . . 30 Table NU.1R: Low birth weight infants, Serbia Roma Settlements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31 Table NU.2: Nutritional status of children, Serbia . . . . . . . 33 Table NU.2R: Nutritional status of children, Serbia Roma Settlements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35 Table NU.3: Initial breastfeeding, Serbia. . . . . . . . . . . . . 38 Table NU.4: Breastfeeding, Serbia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40 Table NU.5: Duration of breastfeeding, Serbia . . . . . . . . . 41 Table NU.6: Age-appropriate breastfeeding, Serbia . . . . . . 42 Table NU.7: Introduction of solid, semi-solid, or soft foods, Serbia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43 Table NU.8: Infant and young child feeding (IYCF) practices, Serbia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44 Table NU.9: Bottle feeding, Serbia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46 Table NU.3R: Initial breastfeeding, Serbia Roma Settlements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47 Table NU.4R: Breastfeeding, Serbia Roma Settlements . . . . 48 Table NU.5R: Duration of breastfeeding, Serbia Roma Settlements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50 Table NU.6R: Age-appropriate breastfeeding, Serbia Roma Settlements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51 Table NU.7R: Introduction of solid, semi-solid, or soft foods, Serbia Roma Settlements . . . . . . . . . . . . 51 Table NU.8R: Infant and young child feeding (IYCF) practices, Serbia Roma Settlements . . . . . . . . . . 52 Table NU.9R: Bottle feeding, Serbia Roma Settlements . . . . 54 Table CH.1: Vaccinations in the first years of life, Serbia . . . 56 Table CH.2: Vaccinations by background characteristics, Serbia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57 Table CH.2A: Coverage of the pentavalent DPT-IPV-Hib combination vaccine and timeliness of polio and measles vaccines, Serbia . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59 Table CH.1R: Vaccinations in the first years of life, Serbia Roma Settlements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60 Table CH.2R: Vaccinations by background characteristics, Serbia Roma Settlements . . . . . . . . . . . 62 Table CH.2A.R: Coverage of the pentavalent DPT-IPV-Hib combination vaccine and timeliness of polio and measles vaccines, Serbia Roma Settlements . . . 64 Table CH.3A: Health insurance card, Serbia . . . . . . . . . . 65 Table CH.3A.R: Health insurance card, Serbia Roma Settlements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 66 Table CH.4: Knowledge of the two danger signs of pneumonia, Serbia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 67 Table CH.4R: Knowledge of the two danger signs of pneumonia, Serbia Roma Settlements . . . . . . . . . . . 69 Table CH.5: Solid fuel use, Serbia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 70 Table CH.6: Solid fuel use by place of cooking, Serbia . . . . . 72 Table CH.5R: Solid fuel use, Serbia Roma Settlements. . . . . 73 Table CH.6R: Solid fuel use by place of cooking, Serbia Roma Settlements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 74 Table WS.1: Use of improved water sources, Serbia . . . . . . 76 Table WS.2: Household water treatment, Serbia . . . . . . . . 79 Table WS.3: Time to source of drinking water, Serbia . . . . . 80 Table WS.4: Person collecting water, Serbia . . . . . . . . . . . 81 Table WS.1R: Use of improved water sources, Serbia Roma Settlements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 82 Table WS.2R: Household water treatment, Serbia Roma Settlements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 84 Table WS.3R: Time to source of drinking water, Serbia Roma Settlements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 85 Table WS.4R: Person collecting water, Serbia Roma Settlements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 86 Table WS.5: Types of sanitation facilities, Serbia . . . . . . . . 87 Table WS.6: Use and sharing of sanitation facilities, Serbia. . . 88 Table WS.7: Drinking water and sanitation ladders, Serbia . . 90 Table WS.5R: Types of sanitation facilities, Serbia Roma Settlements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 92 Table WS.6R: Use and sharing of sanitation facilities, Serbia Roma Settlements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 94 Table WS.7R: Drinking water and sanitation ladders, Serbia Roma Settlements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 94 Table RH.1: Fertility rates, Serbia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 97 Table RH.2: Early childbearing, Serbia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 99 Table RH.3: Trends in early childbearing, Serbia . . . . . . . . 100 Table RH.1R: Fertility rates, Serbia Roma Settlements. . . . . 101 Monitoring the situation of children and women xi Table RH.2R: Early childbearing, Serbia Roma Settlements . . 102 Table RH.3R: Trends in early childbearing, Serbia Roma Settlements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 102 Table RH.3A: Knowledge of specific contraceptive methods, Serbia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 103 Table RH.3B: Knowledge of contraceptive methods, Serbia. . 104 Table RH.4: Use of contraception, Serbia . . . . . . . . . . . . 105 Table RH.4A: Reasons for never using any methods of contraception to avoid or delay pregnancy, Serbia . . . . 107 Table RH.3A.R: Knowledge of specific contraceptive methods, Serbia Roma Settlements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 108 Table RH.3B.R: Knowledge of contraceptive methods, Serbia Roma Settlements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 109 Table RH.4R: Use of contraception, Serbia Roma Settlements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 110 Table RH.4A.R: Reasons for never using any methods to avoid or delay pregnancy, Serbia Roma Settlements . . . 113 Table RH.5: Unmet need for contraception, Serbia . . . . . . . 115 Table RH.5R: Unmet need for contraception, Serbia Roma Settlements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 117 Table RH.6: Antenatal care coverage, Serbia . . . . . . . . . .120 Table RH.7: Number of antenatal care visits and timing of first visit, Serbia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 121 Table RH.8: Content of antenatal care, Serbia. . . . . . . . . . 122 Table RH.8A: Antenatal and post-natal home visits, Serbia . . 123 Table RH.8B: Counselling during childbirth preparation programme, Serbia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 124 Table RH.8C: Reasons for not attending childbirth preparation programme, Serbia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 125 Table RH.6R: Antenatal care coverage, Serbia Roma Settlements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 126 Table RH.7R: Number of antenatal care visits and timing of first visit, Serbia Roma Settlements . . . . . . . . 127 Table RH.8R: Content of antenatal care, Serbia Roma Settlements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 128 Table RH.8A.R: Antenatal and post-natal home visits, Serbia Roma Settlements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 129 Table RH.8B.R: Counselling during childbirth preparation programme, Serbia Roma Settlements . . . . .130 Table RH.8C.R: Reasons for not attending childbirth preparation programme, Serbia Roma Settlements . . . . . 131 Table RH.9: Assistance during delivery and caesarean section, Serbia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 132 Table RH.9R: Assistance during delivery and caesarian section, Serbia Roma Settlements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 135 Table RH.10: Place of delivery, Serbia. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 137 Table RH.10A: Use of baby-friendly services, Serbia . . . . . . 138 Table RH.10R: Place of delivery, Serbia Roma Settlements . . 140 Table RH.10A.R: Use of baby-friendly services, Serbia Roma Settlements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 141 Table RH.11: Lifetime experience with wasted pregnancies, Serbia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 142 Table RH.11R: Lifetime experience with wasted pregnancies, Serbia Roma Settlements . . . . . . . . . . . . 144 Table CD.1: Early childhood education, Serbia . . . . . . . . . 146 Table CD.1A: Early child development, Serbia . . . . . . . . . 147 Table CD.1R: Early childhood education, Serbia Roma Settlements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 148 Table CD.1A.R: Early child development, Serbia Roma Settlements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 149 Table CD.2: Support for learning, Serbia. . . . . . . . . . . . . 151 Table CD.2A: Support for learning for children age 12-35 months, Serbia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 153 Table CD.3: Learning materials, Serbia . . . . . . . . . . . . . 155 Table CD.4: Inadequate care, Serbia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 156 Table CD.2R: Support for learning, Serbia Roma Settlements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 157 Table CD.2A.R: Support for learning for children age 12-35 months, Serbia Roma Settlements . . . . . . . . . 158 Table CD.3R: Learning materials, Serbia Roma Settlements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 160 Table CD.4R: Inadequate care, Serbia Roma Settlements . . . 161 Table CD.5: Early child development index, Serbia . . . . . . . 163 Table CD.5R: Early child development index, Serbia Roma Settlements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 164 Table ED.1: Literacy (young women), Serbia . . . . . . . . . . . 165 Table ED.1R: Literacy (young women), Serbia Roma Settlements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 166 Table ED.2: School readiness, Serbia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 167 Table ED.2A: Preschool Preparation Programme (PPP) attendance, Serbia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 168 Table ED.2B: Methods of going to PPP and average distance to the facility, Serbia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 170 Table ED.2C: Children attending PPP and living more than 2 km away from the PPP facility, Serbia . . . . . 171 Table ED.2R: School readiness, Serbia Roma Settlements . . . 172 Table ED.2A.R: Preschool Preparation Programme (PPP) attendance, Serbia Roma Settlements . . . . . . . . . 173 Table ED.2B.R: Methods of going to PPP and average distance to the facility, Serbia Roma Settlements . . . . . . 174 Table ED.2C.R: Children attending PPP and living more than 2 km away from the PPP facility, Serbia Roma Settlements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 175 Table ED.2D.R: Reasons for non-attendance to the preparatory preschool programme (PPP), Serbia Roma Settlements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 176 Table ED.3: Primary school entry, Serbia . . . . . . . . . . . . 178 Table ED.4: Primary school attendance and out of school children, Serbia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 179 Table ED.5: Secondary school attendance and out of school children, Serbia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 181 Table ED.6: Children reaching last grade of primary school, Serbia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 182 Table ED.7: Primary school completion and transition to secondary school, Serbia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 184 xii Serbia Multiple Indicator Cluster Survey 2014 and Serbia Roma Settlements Multiple Indicator Cluster Survey 2014 Table ED.8: Education gender parity, Serbia . . . . . . . . . . . 185 Table ED.9: Out of school gender parity, Serbia . . . . . . . . . 186 Table ED.10 ISCED: Summary of education indicators (ISCED), Serbia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 188 Table ED.3R: Primary school entry, Serbia Roma Settlements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 189 Table ED.4R: Primary school attendance and out of school children, Serbia Roma Settlements . . . . . . . . . 190 Table ED.5R: Secondary school attendance and out of school children, Serbia Roma Settlements . . . . . . . . . 192 Table ED.6R: Children reaching last grade of primary school, Serbia Roma Settlements . . . . . . . . . 193 Table ED.7R: Primary school completion and transition to secondary school, Serbia Roma Settlements . . . . . . . . 194 Table ED.8R: Education gender parity, Serbia Roma Settlements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 195 Table ED.9R: Out of school gender parity, Serbia Roma Settlements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 196 Table ED.10R ISCED: Summary of education indicators (ISCED), Serbia Roma Settlements . . . . . . . . 197 Table CP.1: Birth registration, Serbia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 198 Table CP.1R: Birth registration, Serbia Roma Settlements . . .200 Table CP.2: Children’s involvement in economic activities, Serbia. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .202 Table CP.3: Children’s involvement in household chores, Serbia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .203 Table CP.4: Child labour, Serbia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .204 Table CP.2R: Children’s involvement in economic activities, Serbia Roma Settlements . . . . . . . . . . . . . .206 Table CP.3R: Children’s involvement in household chores, Serbia Roma Settlements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .207 Table CP.4R: Child labour, Serbia Roma Settlements . . . . .208 Table CP.5: Child discipline, Serbia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .209 Table CP.6: Attitudes toward physical punishment, Serbia . . . 211 Table CP.5R: Child discipline, Serbia Roma Settlements . . . 212 Table CP.6R: Attitudes toward physical punishment, Serbia Roma Settlements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 213 Table CP.7: Early marriage, Serbia. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 215 Table CP.8: Trends in early marriage, Serbia . . . . . . . . . . 216 Table CP.9: Spousal age difference, Serbia . . . . . . . . . . . . 217 Table CP.7R: Early marriage, Serbia Roma Settlements . . . . 218 Table CP.8R: Trends in early marriage, Serbia Roma Settlements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 219 Table CP.9R: Spousal age difference, Serbia Roma Settlements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .220 Table CP.10: Attitudes toward domestic violence, Serbia . . . 221 Table CP.10R: Attitudes toward domestic violence, Serbia Roma Settlements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 223 Table CP.11: Children’s living arrangements and orphanhood, Serbia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 224 Table CP.12: Children with parents living abroad, Serbia . . .225 Table CP.11R: Children’s living arrangements and orphanhood, Serbia Roma Settlements. . . . . . . . . .226 Table CP.12R: Children with parents living abroad, Serbia Roma Settlements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 227 Table CP.13: Attitudes toward children with disabilities, Serbia. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .230 Table CP.13R: Attitudes toward children with disabilities, Serbia Roma Settlements . . . . . . . . . . . . . 232 Table SP.1: Cash benefit programmes, Serbia . . . . . . . . . .234 Table SP.1R: Cash benefit programmes, Serbia Roma Settlements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .236 Table SP.2: Financial social assistance (FSA), Serbia . . . . . .238 Table SP.2R: Financial social assistance (FSA), Serbia Roma Settlements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .240 Table SP.3: Child allowance (CA), Serbia. . . . . . . . . . . . .243 Table SP.3R: Child allowance (CA), Serbia Roma Settlements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .244 Table SP.4: Birth grant, Serbia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 247 Table SP.4R: Birth grant, Serbia Roma Settlements. . . . . . .248 Table SW.1: Domains of life satisfaction, Serbia . . . . . . . . . 251 Table SW.2: Overall life satisfaction and happiness, Serbia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 253 Table SW.3: Perception of a better life, Serbia . . . . . . . . . .254 Table SW.1R: Domains of life satisfaction, Serbia Roma Settlements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .256 Table SW.2R: Overall life satisfaction and happiness, Serbia Roma Settlements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .258 Table SW.3R: Perception of a better life, Serbia Roma Settlements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 259 Table SD.1: Allocation of sample clusters (primary sampling units) to sampling strata, Serbia . . . . . . . . . . 262 Table SD.1R: Allocation of sample clusters (primary sampling units) to sampling strata, Serbia Roma Settlements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .267 Table SE.1: Indicators selected for sampling error calculations, Serbia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 274 Table SE.2: Sampling errors: Total sample, Serbia . . . . . . . 275 Table SE.3: Sampling errors: Urban, Serbia . . . . . . . . . . . 276 Table SE.4: Sampling errors: Other, Serbia . . . . . . . . . . . 277 Table SE.5: Sampling errors: Belgrade, Serbia . . . . . . . . . . 278 Table SE.6: Sampling errors: Vojvodina, Serbia . . . . . . . . . 279 Table SE.7: Sampling errors: Sumadija and Western Serbia, Serbia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .280 Table SE.8: Sampling errors: Southern and Eastern Serbia, Serbia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 281 Table SE.1R: Indicators selected for sampling error calculations, Serbia Roma Settlements . . . . . . . . . . . .283 Table SE.2R: Sampling errors: Total sample, Serbia Roma Settlements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .284 Table SE.3R: Sampling errors: Urban, Serbia Roma Settlements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .285 Table SE.4R: Sampling errors: Other, Serbia Roma Settlements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .286 Table DQ.1: Age distribution of household population, Serbia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 287 Monitoring the situation of children and women xiii Table DQ.2: Age distribution of eligible and interviewed women, Serbia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .288 Table DQ.3: Age distribution of children in household and under-5 questionnaires, Serbia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 289 Table DQ.4: Birth date reporting: Household population, Serbia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 289 Table DQ.5: Birth date and age reporting: Women, Serbia . .290 Table DQ.6: Birth date and age reporting: Under-5s, Serbia . .290 Table DQ.7: Birth date reporting: Children, adolescents and young people, Serbia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .290 Table DQ.8: Birth date reporting: First and last births, Serbia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 291 Table DQ.9: Completeness of reporting, Serbia . . . . . . . . . 291 Table DQ.10: Completeness of information for anthropometric indicators: Underweight, Serbia . . . . . . 292 Table DQ.11: Completeness of information for anthropometric indicators: Stunting, Serbia . . . . . . . . . 292 Table DQ.12: Completeness of information for anthropometric indicators: Wasting, Serbia . . . . . . . . . 293 Table DQ.13: Heaping in anthropometric measurements, Serbia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 293 Table DQ.14: Observation of birth certificates, Serbia . . . . .294 Table DQ.15: Observation of vaccination cards, Serbia . . . . 295 Table DQ.16: Presence of mother in the household and the person interviewed for the under-5 questionnaire, Serbia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 295 Table DQ.17: Selection of children age 1-17 years for the child labour and child discipline modules, Serbia . . . . . .296 Table DQ.18: School attendance by single age, Serbia . . . . .296 Table DQ.19: Sex ratio at birth among children ever born and living, Serbia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 297 Table DQ.1R: Age distribution of household population, Serbia Roma Settlements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 298 Table DQ.2R: Age distribution of eligible and interviewed women, Serbia Roma Settlements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .299 Table DQ.3R: Age distribution of children in household and under-5 questionnaires, Serbia Roma Settlements . . .300 Table DQ.4R: Birth date reporting: Household population, Serbia Roma Settlements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .300 Table DQ.5R: Birth date and age reporting: Women, Serbia Roma Settlements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 301 Table DQ.6R: Birth date and age reporting: Under-5s, Serbia Roma Settlements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 301 Table DQ.7R: Birth date reporting: Children, adolescents and young people, Serbia Roma Settlements . . . . . . . . . 301 Table DQ.8R: Birth date reporting: First and last births, Serbia Roma Settlements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 301 Table DQ.9R: Completeness of reporting, Serbia Roma Settlements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .302 Table DQ.10R: Completeness of information for anthropometric indicators: Underweight, Serbia Roma Settlements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .302 Table DQ.11R: Completeness of information for anthropometric indicators: Stunting, Serbia Roma Settlements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .303 Table DQ.12R: Completeness of information for anthropometric indicators: Wasting, Serbia Roma Settlements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .303 Table DQ.13R: Heaping in anthropometric measurements, Serbia Roma Settlements . . . . . . . . . . .304 Table DQ.14R: Observation of birth certificates, Serbia Roma Settlements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .305 Table DQ.15R: Observation of vaccination cards, Serbia Roma Settlements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .305 Table DQ.16R: Presence of mother in the household and the person interviewed for the under-5 questionnaire, Serbia Roma Settlements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .306 Table DQ.17R: Selection of children age 1-17 years for the child labour and child discipline modules, Serbia Roma Settlements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .306 Table DQ.18R: School attendance by single age, Serbia Roma Settlements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .307 Table DQ.19R: Sex ratio at birth among children ever born and living, Serbia Roma Settlements. . . . . . . .307 Table ED.4 ISCED: Primary school attendance and out of school children, Serbia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .380 Table ED.5 ISCED: Secondary school attendance and out of school children, Serbia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 381 Table ED.5A ISCED: Lower secondary school attendance and out of school children, Serbia . . . . . . . . 382 Table ED.5B ISCED: Upper secondary school attendance and out of school children, Serbia . . . . . . . .383 Table ED.6 ISCED: Children reaching last grade of primary school, Serbia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .384 Table ED.7 ISCED: Primary school completion and transition to secondary school, Serbia . . . . . . . . . .385 Table ED.8 ISCED: Education gender parity, Serbia . . . . . .386 Table ED.9 ISCED: Out of school gender parity, Serbia . . . . 387 Table ED.4R ISCED: Primary school attendance and out of school children, Serbia Roma Settlements. . . . . . .388 Table ED.5R ISCED: Secondary school attendance and out of school children, Serbia Roma Settlements. . . . . . . 389 Table ED.5A.R ISCED: Lower secondary school attendance and out of school children, Serbia Roma Settlements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .390 Table ED.5B.R ISCED: Upper secondary school attendance and out of school children, Serbia Roma Settlements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 391 Table ED.6R ISCED: Children reaching last grade of primary school, Serbia Roma Settlements . . . . . . . . . 392 Table ED.7R ISCED: Primary school completion and transition to secondary school, Serbia Roma Settlements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 393 Table ED.8R ISCED: Education gender parity, Serbia Roma Settlements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 394 Table ED.9R ISCED: Out of school gender parity, Serbia Roma Settlements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 395 xiv Serbia Multiple Indicator Cluster Survey 2014 and Serbia Roma Settlements Multiple Indicator Cluster Survey 2014 List of Figures Figure HH.1: Age and sex distribution of household population, Serbia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 Figure HH.1R: Age and sex distribution of household population, Serbia Roma Settlements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 Figure NU.1: Underweight, stunted, wasted and overweight children under age 5 (moderate and severe), Serbia . . . . . . . . . . . . 34 Figure NU.1R: Underweight, stunted, wasted and overweight children under age 5 (moderate and severe), Serbia Roma Settlements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36 Figure NU.2: Initiation of breastfeeding, Serbia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39 Figure NU.3: Infant feeding patterns by age, Serbia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40 Figure NU.2R: Initiation of breastfeeding, Serbia Roma Settlements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48 Figure NU.3R: Infant feeding patterns by age, Serbia Roma Settlements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49 Figure CH.1: Vaccinations by age 12 months (measles by 24 months), Serbia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 58 Figure CH.1R: Vaccinations by age 12 months (measles by 24 months), Serbia Roma Settlements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61 Figure WS.1: Percent distribution of household members by source of drinking water, Serbia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 78 Figure WS.1R: Percent distribution of household members by source of drinking water, Serbia Roma Settlements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 83 Figure WS.2: Percent distribution of household members by use and sharing of sanitation facilities, Serbia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 89 Figure WS.3: Percentages of household members using improved drinking water sources and improved sanitation, by wealth, Serbia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 91 Figure WS.2R: Percent distribution of household members by use and sharing of sanitation facilities, Serbia Roma Settlements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 92 Figure WS.3R: Percentages of household members using improved drinking water sources and improved sanitation, by wealth, Serbia Roma Settlements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 96 Figure RH.1: Age-specific fertility rates by area, Serbia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 98 Figure RH.2: Differentials in contraceptive use, Serbia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 106 Figure RH.1R: Differentials in contraceptive use, Serbia Roma Settlements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 112 Figure RH.3: Person assisting at delivery, Serbia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 134 Figure RH.2R: Person assisting at delivery, Serbia Roma Settlements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 136 Figure ED.1: Education indicators by sex, Serbia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 187 Figure ED.1R: Education indicators by sex, Serbia Roma Settlements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 196 Figure CP.1: Child disciplining methods, children age 1-14 years, Serbia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 210 Figure CP.1R: Child disciplining methods, children age 1-14 years, Serbia Roma Settlements. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 213 Figure CP.2: Early marriage among women, Serbia. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 216 Figure CP.2R: Early marriage among women, Serbia Roma Settlements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 219 Figure DQ.1: Household population by single ages, Serbia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 288 Figure DQ.2: Weight and height/length measurements by digits reported for the decimal points, Serbia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 294 Figure DQ.1R: Household population by single ages, Serbia Roma Settlements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 299 Figure DQ.2R: Weight and height/length measurements by digits reported for the decimal points, Serbia Roma Settlements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .304 Monitoring the situation of children and women xv List of Abbreviations ARI Acute respiratory infections BCG Bacillus Calmette-Guérin (Tuberculosis) CA Child Allowances CBR Crude Birth Rate CHERG Child Health Epidemiology Reference Group CRC Convention on the Rights of the Child CSPro Census and Survey Processing System deff Design effect deft Square root of the design effect DHS Demographic and Health Survey DPT Diphteria Pertussis Tetanus ECD Early Childhood Development ECDI Early Childhood Development Index ECE Early Childhood Education EPI Expanded Programme on Immunization EU European Union FSA Financial Social Assistance GFR General Fertility Rate GPI Gender Parity Index GVAP Global Vaccine Action Plan HepB Hepatitis B Hib Haemophilus influenzae type b HIV Human Immunodeficiency Virus IPV Inactivated polio vaccine ISCED International Standard Classification of Education IUD Intrauterine Device IYCF Infant and young child feeding JMP Joint Monitoring Programme LAM Lactational Amenorrhea Method LSMS Living Standards Measurement Survey MDG Millennium Development Goals MICS Multiple Indicator Cluster Survey MICS2 Second global round of Multiple Indicator Clusters Surveys programme MICS3 Third global round of Multiple Indicator Clusters Surveys programme MICS4 Fourth global round of Multiple Indicator Clusters Surveys programme MICS5 Fifth global round of Multiple Indicator Clusters Surveys programme MMR Measles, mumps and rubella NAR Net Attendance Rate NPA National Plan of Action for Children OPV Oral polio vaccine PAHO Pan American Health Organization PC Personal computer PPP Preschool Preparatory Programme PPS Probability proportional to size PSU Primary Sampling Unit QFIVE United Nations Program for Child Mortality Estimation RME Relative margin of error RR Response rate SIPRU Social Inclusion and Poverty Reduction Unit SORS Statistical Office of the Republic of Serbia SPSS Statistical Package for Social Sciences STI Sexually transmitted infection TFR Total Fertility Rate U5MR Under-five mortality rate UNCRPD UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities UNFPA United Nations Population Fund UNICEF United Nations Children’s Fund WHO World Health Organization xvi Serbia Multiple Indicator Cluster Survey 2014 and Serbia Roma Settlements Multiple Indicator Cluster Survey 2014 Acknowledgements The implementation of the 2014 Serbia MICS and 2014 Serbia Roma Settlements MICS surveys and this report are the result of a joint effort by a number of individuals, institutions and organisations that have contributed, with their professional knowledge and commitment. The United Nation Children’s Fund (UNICEF) provided financial support, which made the implementation of the surveys possible. Special thanks are owed to the staff and consultants of the UNICEF Serbia Office, UNICEF CEE/CIS Regional Office in Geneva and the global MICS team in UNICEF New York for their professional contribution and assistance in the preparation of the surveys. The UNICEF Serbia team, led by Judita Reichenberg, Michel Saint-Lot and Lesley Miller, provided their expertise and support during the implementation phase. Project consultant Tatjana Karaulac assisted during all phases of the surveys, and preparation of the final report, while the overall country-level coordination of the surveys was successfully managed by Aleksandra Jovic. Special thanks go to Siraj Mahmudlu, UNICEF Regional MICS Coordinator, and the members of the UNICEF Regional team, in particular to Ana Abdelbasit, Hans Pettersson and Aleksandar Zoric, whose continuous technical and logistical support was of vital importance. We express our sincere gratitude to the global MICS Team, especially Attila Hancioglu, David Megill, Ivana Bjelic, Yadigar Coskun and Turgay Unalan, who supported data processing and analysis. Thank you to a number of local and international experts who provided critical support and input in the data collection process and during the preparation of the report. Members of the MICS Steering Committee provided important advice and comments during the preparation of the surveys, the development of the questionnaires, and the drafting of the report. Particularly valuable was the support of experts in the domains of immunization and nutrition from the Institute of Public Health of Serbia who participated in all stages of MICS5. Marko Milanovic provided valuable contributions to the new module on attitudes towards children with disability. The hard work and commitment of the staff in the Statistical Office of the Republic of Serbia (SORS) greatly contributed to the successful implementation of the surveys. Special recognition goes to the MICS project manager, Professor Dragan Vukmirovic, PhD, for his leadership, the coordinators in SORS, the data processing staff, sampling expert, interviewers, measurers, editors, supervisors, listing experts, and data entry staff. We express our genuine gratitude to all the individuals and households of Serbia, including those living in Roma settlements, who generously opened the doors of their homes and gave their time to the realisation of these surveys. Without their collaboration and contribution, the implementation of these surveys would not have been possible. We hope that this report will help to improve the living conditions of all children and women in Serbia. Monitoring the situation of children and women xvii EXECUTIVE SUMMARYEXECUTIVE SUMMARY This report is based on the 2014 Serbia Multiple Indicator Cluster Survey (MICS) and 2014 Serbia Roma Settlements MICS surveys, conducted in 2014 by the Statistical Office of the Republic of Serbia with technical and financial support from UNICEF. Both MICS surveys were carried out in 2014 in Serbia on two independent samples — Serbia MICS on the nationally representative sample and Serbia Roma Settlements MICS on the sample of the population living in Roma settlements6. 6 2014 Serbia MICS, the nationally representative survey, also included some households whose head of households self-declared as Roma (data presented through the background characteristic “Ethnicity”). However, as these findings are based on the nationally representative sample they are different from the findings of the 2014 Serbia Roma Settlements MICS that is based on the sample of population living in Roma settlements. The surveys provide statistically sound and internationally comparable data essential for developing evidence-based policies and programmes, and for monitoring progress toward national goals and global commitments. Among these global commitments are those emanating from the World Fit for Children Declaration and Plan of Action, the Education for All Declaration and the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs). Survey findings from both samples are presented jointly in this report. The findings pertain, unless stated otherwise, to February-April 2014, when the fieldwork was conducted. Child Mortality Child mortality indicators were calculated on the basis of the MICS data only for the Roma settlements. The infant mortality rate among children in Roma settlements is estimated at 13 per thousand live births, while the probability of dying under the age of 5 is around 14 per thousand live births. When compared to the national average on the basis of data from the vital registration system it is almost twice as high. Low Birth WeightLow Birth Weight 99 percent of all newborns were weighed at birth while 5 percent of all births were below 2500 grams. In the Roma settlements, 99 percent of live births were weighed. 15 percent of all newborns had low birth weight at birth. Nutritional StatusNutritional Status The prevalence of child malnourishment (moderate and severe) in Serbia is relatively low: the prevalence of underweight is nearly 2 percent, close to 6 percent of children are stunted (too short for their age), and 4 percent are wasted (too thin for their height). About 14 percent of children are overweight. The prevalence of stunting is 14 percent among the children from the poorest quintile. The nutritional status found among children living in Roma settlements reveals a more unfavourable situation — the prevalence of malnourishment is several times higher than the national average (around 10 percent of children are underweight and around 19 percent are stunted). The prevalence of obesity is lower than in the national sample — 5 percent. The prevalence of stunting is the highest among the children from the poorest quintile, at 28 percent. xviii Serbia Multiple Indicator Cluster Survey 2014 and Serbia Roma Settlements Multiple Indicator Cluster Survey 2014 Breastfeeding and Infant and Young Child Feeding Although breastfeeding was initiated for 90 percent of children in Serbia, only 13 percent of children are exclusively breastfed until the sixth month of age while 47 percent of children 0-5 months old are predominantly breastfed. The median duration of exclusive breastfeeding of children 0-35 months old in Serbia is 0.5 months while for any breastfeeding it is 10.5 months. 94 percent of all children age 6-23 months in Serbia were receiving solid, semi-solid and soft foods the recommended minimum number of times. 90 percent of children had minimal dietary diversity while 72 percent were benefiting from a diet sufficient in both diversity and frequency. Only 84 percent of the non-breastfed children 6-23 months received at least 2 milk feeds during the day while this percentage drops to 56 percent among the children living in the poorest households. The situation of children in Roma settlements is similar, where 94 percent of children are ever breastfed, 13 percent are exclusively breastfed until the sixth month and 61 percent of children age 0-5 months are predominantly breastfed. Median duration of any breastfeeding for children 0-35 months from Roma settlements is 15.7 months. 72 percent of all children age 6-23 months were receiving solid, semi-solid and soft foods the recommended minimum number of times. The overall assessment using the indicator of minimum acceptable diet revealed that only 31 percent were benefiting from a diet sufficient in both diversity and frequency. For the minimum acceptable diet indicator, corresponding percentages by wealth index quintile range from 14 percent of children in the poorest wealth index quintile to 53 percent of children in the richest quintile. Vaccinations 81 percent of children 24-35 months old received all recommended vaccines (at any time before the survey date) while 71 percent received all vaccines on time (by their second birthday for measles and by their first birthday for all other vaccinations). The coverage for the first and the second doses of all individual vaccines, except the Hib, is above 90 percent and then declines for the third dose but not below 85 percent. About half of all children age 12-23 months received the Polio 3 vaccine before 6 months of age, which is considered timely as per the national calendar of immunization, with notable regional differences — 41 percent in Vojvodina compared with 64 percent in Southern and Eastern Serbia. The timely immunization rates with Polio 3 are the lowest among children whose mothers have only primary education (42 percent) and from the poorest households (35 percent). Overall, only 65 percent of children age 24-35 months received the measles vaccine by 15 months of age with notable regional differences (28 percent in Belgrade vs. 79 percent in Southern and Eastern Serbia). In Roma settlements, 44 percent of children 24-35 months old received all recommended vaccines (at any time before the survey date) while only 13 percent received all vaccines on time (by their second birthday for measles and by their first birthday for all other vaccinations). The coverage for individual vaccines, except for BCG and HepB, is below 90 percent and is declining for the second and the third dose. For example, coverage for the first dose of Polio is 87 percent while it is 61 percent for the third dose. The coverage is lowest for the measles vaccine as only 63 percent of children 24-35 months old received it by 24 months. Full immunization coverage is even lower for children whose mothers have no education (33 percent) and those from the poorest households (32 percent). 45 percent of all children age 12-23 months have received the Polio 3 vaccine before 6 months of age while 53 percent of children age 24-35 months received the measles vaccine before 15 months of age, which is considered timely as per the national calendar of immunization. Monitoring the situation of children and women xix Water and sanitation Overall, almost 100 percent of the population uses an improved source of drinking water — 100 percent in urban areas and 99 percent in other areas. In Vojvodina, 70 percent of the population uses drinking water that is piped into their dwelling or into their yard or plot while this is the case for 88 percent of population in Southern and Eastern Serbia. The second most important source of drinking water in Vojvodina is bottled water (22 percent) as is the case in Belgrade (11 percent). 97 percent of the population of Serbia lives in households using improved sanitation facilities that are not shared. In other areas, the population mostly uses flush to septic tank (65 percent). In contrast, the most common facilities in urban areas are flush toilets with connection to a sewage system (83 percent). 98 percent of the population in Roma settlements uses an improved source of drinking water — 100 percent in urban areas and 92 percent in other areas. The proportion of the population in Roma settlements using drinking water piped into their dwelling is 75 percent. 73 percent of the population in Roma settlements lives in households using improved sanitation facilities that are not shared. 77 percent of households use improved sanitation in urban areas and 61 percent in other areas. In other areas, the population mostly uses pit latrines with slabs (30 percent). In contrast, the most common facility in urban areas is a pour flush to a piped sewer system (51 percent). 42 percent of the population in the poorest households use a pit latrine with slab, and 35 percent of them use a pit latrine without slab/open pit, while 11 percent does not have facilities. Fertility The TFR for the one year preceding the 2014 Serbia MICS survey is 1.6 births per woman. The adolescent birth rate in Serbia is 22. Only 3 percent of the women age 15-19 have begun childbearing, and almost none of the woman age 15- 19 have had a live birth before age 15. Furthermore, only 1 percent of women aged 20-24 have had a live birth before the age of 18. The TFR for the one year preceding the 2014 Serbia Roma Settlements MICS survey is 3.1 births per woman. The adolescent birth rate in Roma settlements in Serbia is 157. About one quarter of woman aged 15-19 years have already had a birth. 9 percent of the women of this age are pregnant with their first child, and 4 percent have had a live birth before age 15. Furthermore, 38 percent of women aged 20-24 have had a live birth before the age of 18. The percentage of women age 20-49 years who have had a live birth before 18 is the same. xx Serbia Multiple Indicator Cluster Survey 2014 and Serbia Roma Settlements Multiple Indicator Cluster Survey 2014 Contraception The data show that almost all women have heard of some type of contraceptive method and the mean number of methods known by women is 11 (of 14 methods). Current use of contraception was reported by 58 percent of women who are married or in union. Traditional methods are dominant and are used by 40 percent of women, while modern methods are used by 18 percent of women. The most popular method is withdrawal which is used by 35 percent of married women in Serbia, followed by male condom, which is used by 12 percent of women. Contraceptive prevalence ranges from 45 percent in the Belgrade region to 71 percent in Southern and Eastern Serbia. Prevalence of any modern method rises with the level of education and wealth. Only 9 percent of women with primary education use any modern method compared with 28 percent of women with higher education. Only 10 percent of women living in the poorest households use modern methods, compared to the richest households where every fourth woman uses a modern method. 95 percent of all women in Roma settlements have heard of some type of contraceptive method and the mean number of methods known by women is 6 (of 14 methods). 12 percent of women with no education and 14 percent of women in the poorest households had not heard of any modern methods. Current use of contraception was reported by 61 percent of women currently married or in union. Any modern methods are used by only 7 percent, while traditional methods are used by 54 percent. The most popular method is withdrawal which is used by 52 percent of married women followed by the male condom, used by 3 percent of married women. The percentage of married women using any method of contraception varies from 59 percent among those with no education and 61 percent with primary education to 71 percent among those with secondary or higher education. Antenatal care 98 percent of women aged 15-49 years in Serbia who had a live birth during the two years preceding the survey received antenatal care, provided by medical doctors in almost all cases. 97 percent of women have received antenatal care more than once, and 94 percent of mothers have received it at least four times. Overall, 94 percent of women with a live birth in the last two years had their first antenatal care visit during the first trimester of their last pregnancy, with a median of 1.2 months of pregnancy at the first visit. Women from the poorest households tend to have their first antenatal visit later as a lower percentage of them (84 percent) had their first visit during the first trimester. 90 percent of women received the recommended content of antenatal care. The percentage of those who received a home visit by a patronage nurse during pregnancy is low with only 29 percent of women receiving it. The lowest coverage of women is in the Belgrade region (9 percent) while the highest is in Southern and Eastern Serbia (53 percent). Much more importance is given to postnatal home visits, where 94 percent of women were visited by a patronage nurse within a week after delivery. The average number of postnatal visits by a patronage nurse after birth is 4.3. 96 percent of women aged 15-49 years from Roma settlements who had a live birth during the two years preceding the survey received antenatal care, provided by medical doctors in 95 percent of cases. 91 percent of mothers received antenatal care more than once and 74 percent received antenatal care at least four times. 60 percent of mothers from the poorest households received antenatal care four or more times, compared with 89 percent among those living in the richest households. Overall, 81 percent of women with a live birth in the last two years from Roma settlements had their first antenatal care visit during the first trimester of their last pregnancy, with a median of 2.0 months of pregnancy. There are some differences by socio- economic status as only 63 percent of women from the poorest households had their first visit during the first trimester of their last pregnancy while this was the case for 91 percent of women from the richest households. 79 percent of women received the recommended content of antenatal care. Monitoring the situation of children and women xxi Assistance at delivery Overall, 98 percent of births were delivered by skilled personnel. 29 percent of women had a C-section; for 20 percent of women, the decision was taken before the onset of labour pains and for 9 percent after the onset of labour pains. The highest percent of births by caesarean section are among women age 35-49 years (37 percent). 98 percent of all births in Serbia were delivered in a health facility. 99 percent of births of women from Roma settlements were delivered by skilled personnel. In total, 13 percent of women had a C-section; for 6 percent of women, the decision was taken before the onset of labour pains and for the same percent after. There is a higher percent of births by caesarean section among women age 20-34 years (14 percent) and from the poorest quintiles (18 percent). 99 percent of all births of women from Roma settlements were delivered in a health facility. Only 14 percent of women with live births in the last two years attended a childbirth preparation programme in primary health facilities. The main reasons for low utilization were: 51 percent of women stated they did not need it, 20 percent reported that no such programme was organized in their neighborhood, 13 percent had no time and 9 percent did not know that such programme existed. 22 percent of women were visited by a patronage nurse during pregnancy while 88 percent were visited by a patronage nurse within a week after returning home following delivery. In average, they were visited 3.5 times. The percentage of women in Roma settlements with live births in the two years preceding the survey that attended a childbirth preparation programme is very low, at 3 percent. Abortions In Serbia, overall, 15 percent of women have had at least one induced abortion. Abortion is more widespread among women with primary education (28 percent) and among those living in the poorest households (21 percent). The percentage of women who had an experience of abortion rises with age and is highest among older women 45-49 years (32 percent). There are differences by regions, and the percentage of women with reported induced abortions ranges from 8 percent in the Belgrade region to 19 percent in Southern and Eastern Serbia. Out of all women age 15-49 years who had an abortion, 55 percent had one abortion, 38 percent had 2 or 3 and 8 percent had four or more abortions. In total, 31 percent of women from Roma settlements have had at least one induced abortion. Abortion is more widespread among women with primary education (34 percent) and among those living in the richest households (35 percent). The percentage of women who had an experience of abortion rises with age and is highest among older women 45-49 years (56 percent). Among women age 15-49 years who have had an abortion, 29 percent had one abortion, 41 percent had 2 or 3 and 30 percent had four or more abortions. xxii Serbia Multiple Indicator Cluster Survey 2014 and Serbia Roma Settlements Multiple Indicator Cluster Survey 2014 Early Childhood Care and Education In Serbia, 50 percent of children age 3-4 years attend an organised early childhood education. The figure is as high as 63 percent in urban areas, compared to 27 percent in other areas. 82 percent of children living in the richest households attend such programmes, while the figure drops to 9 percent in the poorest households. The proportion of children attending early childhood education programmes at ages 36-47 months is 44 percent while attendance among the older age group of 48-59 months is 56 percent. The main reason for non-attendance to early childhood education programmes is that there is someone who can take care of the child at home (66 percent) while access issues are reasons for non-attendance of 38 percent of children. Costly services present an obstacle mainly for children from the Belgrade region (34 percent) and urban areas (21 percent) while overcrowded facilities are more frequent reasons for children from Vojvodina (21 percent) and those from the poorest households (17 percent). Only 6 percent of children age 3-4 years from Roma settlements attend an organised early childhood education programme with somewhat higher attendance in urban (6 percent) than in other areas (3 percent). 28 percent of children whose mothers have secondary or higher education attend such programmes, while the figure drops to 2 percent for children of mothers who have only primary education. The attendance of early childhood education programmes is higher among the older age group of children 48-59 months old (10 percent) than among smaller children of 36-47 months old (2 percent). The main reason for non-attendance to early childhood education programmes is that there is someone who can take care of the child at home (44 percent). Access issues are reasons for non-attendance of 43 percent of children where costly services (24 percent) and other too high expenses (22 percent) related to preschool programme attendance present the main obstacles. Quality of Care For 96 percent of children age 36-59 months, an adult household member engaged in four or more activities that promote learning and school readiness during the 3 days preceding the survey. More children benefited from mothers’ engagement (90 percent) than fathers’ (37 percent). Fathers were more engaged in activities with male children (41 percent) compared to female children (32 percent). For 91 percent of children age 12-35 months, adults engaged in four or more activities, with a similarly higher engagement of mothers (83 percent) than fathers (34 percent). Both parents are less engaged in at least four activities that promote learning with younger children 12-23 months old than with children aged 24-35 months old. For 68 percent of children 36-59 months old, an adult household member engaged in four or more early learning activities; mothers engaged in such activities with 48 percent of children while fathers engaged in activities of 17 percent of children. Adults engaged with female children more (75 percent) than with boys (62 percent). Adult engagement in activities with children was greatest with children whose mothers have higher education (96 percent) and lowest for children whose mothers are without education (49 percent). Engagement of adults in the early learning activities of smaller children (12-35 months) is almost at the same level as with the older children. Monitoring the situation of children and women xxiii 72 percent of children under five live in households where at least 3 children’s books are present while the proportion of children with 10 or more books declines to 55 percent. Only 44 percent of children from the poorest households have 3 or more books compared with 83 percent of children from the richest households. 75 percent of children age 0-59 months have 2 or more types of playthings to play with in their homes. 1 percent of children had been left with inadequate care during the previous week, either by being left alone or in the care of another child. In Roma settlements in Serbia, only 12 percent of children under five live in households where at least 3 children’s books are present while the proportion of children with 10 or more books declines to 2 percent. Some 4 percent of children from the poorest households have at least 3 books compared to 24 percent for children from the richest households. 53 percent of children age 0-59 months had 2 or more types of playthings to play with in their homes. 4 percent of children were left with inadequate care during the week preceding the survey, either by being left alone or in the care of another child. Developmental Status of Children In Serbia, 95 percent of children aged 36-59 months are developmentally on track. The analysis of the four domains of child development shows that 98 percent of children are on track in the learning domain, 99 percent in the physical domain and 95 percent in the social-emotional domain. Many fewer are on track (35 percent) in the literacy- numeracy domain. In Roma settlements, 83 percent of children aged 36-59 months are developmentally on track. Children living in poorest households have lower ECDI (77 percent) compared to children living in richest households (90 percent). The analysis of the four domains of child development shows that 95 percent of children are on track in the learning domain and 96 percent in the physical domain, somewhat less in the socio-emotional domain (83 percent) and many fewer are on track in the literacy- numeracy (16 percent) domain. Literacy among young women 99 percent of young women in Serbia are literate and the literacy status varies only for those women with only primary education and who are from the poorest households. Of women who stated that primary school was their highest level of education, 90 percent were actually able to read the statement shown to them, and this was the case for 94 percent of women from the poorest households. 80 percent of young women in Roma settlements in Serbia are literate. Of women who stated that primary school was their highest level of education, 88 percent were actually able to read the statement shown to them. Socioeconomic status is positively correlated with the literacy rate as 51 percent of the poorest women are literate compared to 98 percent of the richest. xxiv Serbia Multiple Indicator Cluster Survey 2014 and Serbia Roma Settlements Multiple Indicator Cluster Survey 2014 School Readiness Overall, 98 percent of children who are currently attending the first grade of primary school attended pre-school the previous year, with lower values only for children from the poorest households (92 percent). 98 percent of children of the PPP age attend or attended the PPP at the appropriate age — 81 percent of children attend PPP in the public preschool facilities and 19 percent attend PPP in public schools. About 80 percent of children who are currently attending the first grade of primary school attended pre-school the previous year. 63 percent of children of PPP age from Roma settlements attend or attended PPP at the appropriate age. There is a notable difference in the percentage of children attending PPP as per socioeconomic status; PPP is attended by 59 percent of children living in households in the bottom three wealth quintiles in comparison with 72 percent of children living in households in the top two wealth quintiles. Birth Registration The births of 99 percent of children under-five in Serbia have been registered. There are no significant variations in birth registration across different background characteristics apart from ethnicity where Roma have the lowest birth registration rate (94 percent). The births of 95 percent of children under five years in Roma settlements have been registered. Birth registration rate is lower among the children age 0-5 months (83 percent) and among children from the poorest wealth quintile (89 percent). Primary and Secondary School Participation 97 percent of children who are of primary school entry age (who turn 6 by 1st March 2013) attend the first grade of primary school, while this is the case for 91 percent among children in the poorest wealth quintile. 99 percent of children of primary school age (age 6-13 years) attend primary school, while secondary school, which is not compulsory in Serbia, is attended by 89 percent of children (age 14-18 years). 11 percent of children of secondary school age are not attending secondary school: 3 percent attend primary school, while the remaining 8 percent are not attending school at all. In the richest households the proportion of children attending secondary education is around 97 percent, while it is 74 percent among children living in the poorest households. The primary school completion rate is 93 percent and the transition rate to secondary school is 96 percent. Gender parity is 0.99 for primary school and 1.08 for secondary school. Only 69 percent of children from Roma settlements who are of primary school entry age attend the first grade of primary school (82 percent in other and 65 percent in urban areas). 85 percent of children of primary school age (age 6-13 years) attend primary school and 15 percent are out of school. Primary school attendance is lower among Roma children living in households within the poorest quintile (66 percent) compared to children living in the richest households (97 percent). 22 percent of secondary school age children (age 14- 18 years) attend secondary school, 14 percent are still in primary school while 64 percent do not attend any school. There are notable differences in secondary school attendance between girls (15 percent) and boys (28 percent) as well as between children from the poorest households (5 percent) and the richest (40 percent). The primary school completion rate is 64 percent and the secondary school transition rate is 59 percent. Gender parity for primary school is 1.01 while it drops to 0.53 for secondary education. Monitoring the situation of children and women xxv Child Labour In Serbia, children’s engagement in economic activities was such that 12 percent of children age 5-11 year and 2 percent of children age 12-14 years were engaged for the number of hours that would classify their work as child labour (1 hour or more for children 5-11 years old and 14 hours or more for children 12-14 years old). The engagement of children age 15-17 in economic activities was below the threshold (43 hours or more) that would classify it as child labour among all children in this age group. Boys, children from other residence areas and the poorest children are more likely to be involved in economic activities. The percentage of children in household chores for a number of hours that would define it as child labour is negligible. In total, 10 percent of children are involved in child labour including 3 percent who are working under hazardous conditions. In Roma settlements, children’s engagement in economic activities was such that 4 percent of children age 5-11 year and below 1 percent of children age 12-14 years and age 15-17 were engaged for the number of hours that would classify their work as child labour (1 hour or more for children 5-11 years old, 14 hours or more for children 12-14 years old and 43 hours or more for children 15-17 years old). Boys and children from other residence areas are far more likely to be involved in economic activities. 2 percent of children 12-14 years old and 1 percent of children 15-17 years old were engaged in household chores for the number of hours that would classify their work as child labour (28 hours or more for children 12-14 years old and 43 hours or more for children 15-17 years old). In total, 5 percent of children are involved in child labour including 4 percent who are working under hazardous conditions. Child Discipline In Serbia, 43 percent of children aged between 1 and 14 years old were subjected to at least one form of psychological or physical punishment by household members. While 39 percent of children experienced psychological aggression, about 17 percent experienced physical punishment. The most severe forms of physical punishment were experienced by 1 percent of children. Younger children were more exposed to some form of physical disciplining than older children. 25 percent of children age 1-2 years were physically punished while this was the case for 8 percent of children age 10-14 years. 7 percent of respondents to the household questionnaires believe physical punishment is necessary to properly raise a child. In Roma settlements, 66 percent of children aged 1-14 years were subjected to at least one form of psychological or physical punishment by their household members. While 63 percent of children experienced psychological aggression, about 35 percent experienced physical punishment. 8 percent of children, girls more than boys, were subjected to severe punishment. Physical punishment is the most prevalent among children age 3-4 years. 14 percent were the subject of severe punishment and 47 percent were the subject to some form of physical punishment. 11 percent of respondents to the household questionnaires believe physical punishment is necessary to properly raise a child. Early Marriage Around 4 percent of young women aged 15 to 19 are currently married or in union but this rises to 9 percent among those from the poorest households. Among women age 20-49 years, 7 percent were married before the age of 18. 43 percent of young women age 15-19 years from Roma settlements are currently married but this rises to 52 percent of those from the poorest households and with primary education. 17 percent of girls and women age 15-49 were married before the age of 15 while 57 percent of women age 20-49 were married before the age of 18 years. xxvi Serbia Multiple Indicator Cluster Survey 2014 and Serbia Roma Settlements Multiple Indicator Cluster Survey 2014 Attitudes toward Domestic Violence 4 percent of women in Serbia feel that a husband/partner has the right to hit or beat his wife or partner for at least one of a variety of reasons. In most cases, women can justify husband/partner violence when women neglect the children (3 percent), or if women demonstrate their autonomy, e.g. go out without telling their husbands or argue with them (both 1 percent). Domestic violence is more likely to be justified by women from Roma settlements (37 percent). The most common reasons given are the same: when they neglect the children (30 percent) or demonstrate their autonomy, e.g. argue with their husband (21 percent) or go out without telling him (19 percent). Attitudes toward Children with Disability 87 percent of the respondents in Serbia believe that it is better for a child with physical or sensory disabilities to live in the family rather than in a specialized child care institution. Furthermore, 62 percent of them think that children with physical and sensory disabilities attending mainstream schools do not have a negative impact on the work of other students. Only 35 percent of respondents express positive attitudes toward children with physical and sensory disabilities on all five statements used to define common attitudes. 79 percent of the respondents in Serbia believe that it is better for a child with intellectual disabilities to live in the family rather than in a specialized child care institution. Only 32 percent of respondents believe that it is better for children with intellectual disabilities to attend mainstream schools than special schools. Overall, 20 percent of respondents express positive attitudes toward children with intellectual disabilities on all five statements used to define common attitudes. 92 percent of the respondents in Roma settlements believe that it is better for a child with physical or sensory disabilities to live in a family rather than in a specialized child care institution. A smaller percent of respondents (73 percent) believe that it is better for children with physical or sensory disabilities to attend mainstream schools than special schools. 55 percent of respondents express positive attitudes toward children with physical and sensory disabilities on all five statements. 81 percent of the respondents believe that it is better for a child with intellectual disabilities to live in a family rather than in a specialized child care institution and 55 percent of respondents believe that it is better for children with intellectual disabilities to attend mainstream schools than special schools. 38 percent of respondents express positive attitudes toward children with intellectual disabilities on all five statements. Financial Social Assistance (FSA) In Serbia, 4 percent of households received FSA. There are differences regarding almost all background characteristics. Data show that this cash benefit is received by 11 percent of households from the poorest quintile compared to zero percent from the richest quintile. Regarding the ethnicity of the head of household, the highest percent receiving FSA is among the households whose head of household self- declared as Roma (38 percent). In Roma settlements, 49 percent of households received FSA. There are differences regarding the education of the head of household and socioeconomic status. 65 percent of households whose head of households is without education received FSA compared to less than 32 percent of households whose head of household has secondary or higher education. Also, 64 percent of households from the poorest quintile received FSA compared to 28 percent from the richest quintile. Monitoring the situation of children and women xxvii The highest percent of those who did not apply for FSA, have not applied because they know that they did not meet the conditions. One quarter of the households from the poorest quintile did not apply because they were unaware of the programme (7 percent), didn’t know how to apply (14 percent) or because procedures were too complicated (4 percent). The highest percent of those who did not apply for FSA have not applied because they know that they did not meet the conditions (32 percent) and because they were discouraged from applying by being told that they do not meet the conditions (31 percent). As high as 41 percent of the poorest households didn’t apply because they found procedures too complicated (26 percent) and too expensive (15 percent). Child Allowance (CA) Overall, 27 percent of children in Serbia received CA and 25 percent have been receiving CA for at least 12 months. The child allowance is received by 9 percent of all children from the Belgrade region and around 30 percent of children from other regions. As expected, receiving CA is correlated with socioeconomic status; 48 percent of children that live in households from the poorest quintile received CA compared with 11 percent of children living in the richest households. 56 percent of those who didn’t apply for this benefit stated that they knew that they did not meet the conditions while 14 percent was discouraged from applying by being told that they do not meet the conditions. As much as 28 percent of the poorest was told that they did not meet the conditions, while for 17 percent of them administrative procedures were too complicated. 60 percent of children from Roma settlements received CA and 56 percent have been receiving CA for at least 12 months. 45 percent of children that live in households from the poorest quintile received CA compared with 72 percent of children from the fourth quintile. The main reasons why households from the poorest quintile didn’t apply relate to the fact that they thought they did not meet the conditions (33 percent), 23 percent was told that they did not meet the conditions and 28 percent found the administrative procedures to be too complicated or costly. The coverage with CA is the lowest among the oldest age group of children age 15-18 years (29 percent). Birth Grant 89 percent of children under five in Serbia received the birth grant. 86 percent of children in Sumadija and Western Serbia received the birth grant compared to 94 percent in Southern and Eastern Serbia. Only 54 percent of children whose mother is without education received the birth grant compared with 91 and 88 percent of children whose mothers have secondary and higher education, respectively. For the majority of children whose mothers did not apply for this benefit, the main reason was that the mothers knew they did not meet the conditions (38 percent). Other reasons given were that there was still time and they would apply (19 percent), they found the administrative procedure to be too complicated (8 percent) or they didn’t need this benefit (5 percent). The complicated administrative procedure was an obstacle for applying for 18 percent of mothers from the poorest households. Overall, 76 percent of children from Roma settlements received the birth grant. There are some differences regarding the mother’s education since 63 percent of children whose mother is without education received the birth grant compared to 90 percent of children whose mothers have secondary or higher education. 36 percent of mothers who did not submit an application for the birth grant knew that they did not meet the conditions while 18 percent stated that the administrative procedure was too complicated, followed by 9 percent of those who didn’t know how to apply and 8 percent who thought that it was too costly to apply. For 22 percent of mothers from the poorest households, the procedures are too complicated, for 15 percent it is too expensive to apply and 8 percent didn’t know how to apply. xxviii Serbia Multiple Indicator Cluster Survey 2014 and Serbia Roma Settlements Multiple Indicator Cluster Survey 2014 Subjective Well-being 95 percent of young women age 15-24 years are the most satisfied with their health, 93 percent with their family life and 92 percent with their friendships. Among the domains, young women are the least satisfied with their current income, with 74 percent of young women not having an income at all. In total, 93 percent of 15-24 year old women are satisfied with their life while 94 percent are very or somewhat happy. Comparing 15-19 year old women to 20-24 year old women, the proportion of women who are very or somewhat happy is 97 and 91 percent, respectively. The proportion of women age 15-24 years who think that their lives have improved during the last one year and who expect that their lives will get better after one year is 29 percent. 90 percent of young women age 15-24 years from Roma settlements are the most satisfied with their family life and the same percent with their health while 86 percent are the most satisfied with the way they look. Among the domains, young women are the least satisfied with their current income, with 83 percent of young women not having an income at all. It is notable that young women living in the poorest households are least satisfied in all selected domains. The lowest satisfaction is with their living environment, where only about half of them are satisfied. In total, 82 percent of 15-24 year old women from Roma settlements are satisfied with their life overall — the figure ranges from 65 percent for women living in the poorest households to 93 percent among those living in the richest households. 87 percent of women age 15-24 years are very or somewhat happy. The proportion of women age 15-24 years who think that their lives have improved during the last one year and who expect that their lives will get better after one year is only 27 percent. Monitoring the situation of children and women 1 I INTRODUCTION INTRODUCTION Background This report is based on the 2014 Serbia Multiple Indicator Cluster Survey (MICS) and 2014 Serbia Roma Settlements MICS, conducted in 2014 by the Statistical Office of the Republic of Serbia with technical and financial support from UNICEF. The surveys provide statistically sound and internationally comparable data essential for developing evidence- based policies and programmes, and for monitoring progress toward national goals and global commitments. Among these global commitments are those emanating from the World Fit for Children Declaration and Plan of Action, the Education for All Declaration and the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs). A 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 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 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 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, assessment and planning.” (A World Fit for Children, paragraph 60) “…We will conduct periodic reviews at the national and subnational levels of progress in order to address obstacles more effectively and accelerate actions…” (A World Fit for Children, paragraph 61) The Plan of Action of the World Fit for Children (paragraph 61) also calls for the specific involvement of UNICEF in the preparation of periodic progress reports: “…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 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.” Similarly, the Millennium Declaration (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 this Declaration, and ask the Secretary-General to issue periodic reports for consideration by the General Assembly and as a basis for further action.” 2 Serbia Multiple Indicator Cluster Survey 2014 and Serbia Roma Settlements Multiple Indicator Cluster Survey 2014 Serbia is an upper-middle income country that has made significant progress on a wide-ranging reform agenda. Studies, evaluations and research carried out over the past 3 years, show that much progress has been made towards achieving Serbia’s national Millennium Development Goals, particularly in the areas of health, reform of social services, and education. The prospect of EU integration is driving the comprehensive reforms of the economic and social sectors. Serbia became a candidate for European Union (EU) membership in 2012, and started negotiations for membership in January 2014. Over the past 5 years, the country has continued to revise its normative framework and established a number of institutions to strengthen accountability and guarantee respect for rights and the full implementation of the legal framework, without discrimination. The most important reform processes related to children and supported by UNICEF in Serbia are in the areas of child protection, education and health. In the area of child protection the main focus is on de-institutionalization, prevention of family separation through development of community based services and strengthening of social protection programmes. In the area of education, efforts are being made to fully implement inclusive legal provisions on education to enable equal access and the right to quality education for all children. The main focus in the area of health is support to early childhood development services and Roma health. Serbia is one of the few countries in which all four previous rounds of MICS were implemented. This occurred, however, under three different states. The first MICS was conducted in 1996 while Serbia was a part of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia in order to review progress towards the World Summit for Children with the 2000 Federal Republic of Yugoslavia MICS (MICS2) conducted as a follow-up in 2000. The 2005 Serbia MICS (MICS3) came in time to show progress in meeting “A World Fit for Children Declaration” but also in the implementation of the National Plan of Action for Children (NPA) and the Poverty Reduction Strategy of Serbia. Serbia was then part of the State Union of Serbia and Montenegro which ceased to exist in 2006 when Serbia became independent. The MICS survey implemented in 2005 and the MICS survey implemented in late 2010 (as part of the MICS4 round), were conducted on Roma settlements samples as well, to close the data gap for this very vulnerable population group, as is the case with this round of MICS. MICS data have been and continue to be an important source of information on the situation of vulnerable children and their families. The MICS surveys implemented in 2005 and 2010 proved to be sensitive enough to measure disparities and bring a wealth of data about groups that are difficult to reach and have remained the only source for many indicators that reveal the status of Roma children and women, as well as inter-linkages stemming from the different background characteristics of children and their parents. Bearing in mind the ongoing process of reforms, having reliable and recent data on the general population but even more importantly on socially excluded and deprived groups will be the key precondition for development of new adequate social inclusion policies. The 2014 Serbia MICS and 2014 Serbia Roma Settlements MICS provide up-to-date and comparable data that will enable decision makers within the Government and all other stakeholders to critically assess progress made and to put additional efforts in areas that require more attention. The findings of the 2014 Serbia MICS and 2014 Serbia Roma Settlements MICS will be critically important for final MDG reporting in 2015, and are expected to form part of the baseline data for the post-2015 era. The 2014 Serbia MICS and 2014 Serbia Roma Settlements MICS is expected to contribute to the evidence base of several other important initiatives, including Committing to Child Survival: A Promise Renewed, a global movement to end child deaths from preventable causes, and the accountability framework proposed by the Commission on Information and Accountability for the Global Strategy for Women’s and Children’s Health. This final report presents the results of the indicators and topics covered in both surveys. Monitoring the situation of children and women 3 Survey Objectives The 2014 Serbia MICS and 2014 Serbia Roma Settlements MICS have as their primary objectives:  To provide up-to-date information for assessing the situation of children and women in Serbia;  To generate data for the critical assessment of the progress made in various areas, and to put additional efforts in those areas that require more attention;  To furnish data needed for monitoring progress toward goals established in the Millennium Declaration and other internationally agreed upon goals, as a basis for future action;  To collect disaggregated data for the identification of disparities, to allow for evidence based policy-making aimed at social inclusion of the most vulnerable;  To contribute to the generation of baseline data for the post-2015 agenda;  To validate data from other sources and the results of focused interventions. 4 Serbia Multiple Indicator Cluster Survey 2014 and Serbia Roma Settlements Multiple Indicator Cluster Survey 2014 IIII SAMPLE AND SURVEY SAMPLE AND SURVEY METHODOLOGYMETHODOLOGY In 2014, two MICS surveys were carried out in Serbia using two different samples — the 2014 Serbia MICS and the 2014 Serbia Roma Settlements MICS. The 2014 Serbia MICS was carried out based on a national sample representative of the whole population of Serbia. The 2014 Serbia Roma Settlements MICS was carried out based on a Roma settlements sample representative of the population living in Roma settlements in Serbia. Individual samples and their technical characteristics will be described separately in the relevant parts of the report. Elements of the survey methodology that were common for both samples, as well as survey findings will be presented jointly to avoid repetition. Sample Design for the 2014 Serbia MICS The national sample for the 2014 Serbia Multiple Indicator Cluster Survey was designed to provide estimates for a large number of indicators on the situation of children and women at the national level, for urban and other7 areas, and for 4 regions: Belgrade, Vojvodina, Sumadija and Western Serbia, and Southern and Eastern Serbia. The urban and other domains within 25 Areas were identified as the main sampling strata and the sample was selected in two stages. Within each stratum, a specified number of census enumeration areas was selected systematically with probability proportional to size. After a household listing was carried out within the selected enumeration areas, the listed households were divided into households with and without children under 5, and a separate systematic sample of households was selected for each group. At the national level a total of 7351 households were selected: 2921 households with children and 4430 households without children. The 2014 Serbia MICS sample is not self-weighting. For reporting of the national level results, sample weights were used. A more detailed description of the 2014 Serbia MICS sample design can be found in Appendix A. Sample Design for the 2014 Serbia Roma Settlements MICS The sample for the 2014 Serbia Roma Settlements MICS was designed to provide estimates for a large number of indicators on the situation of children and women in Roma settlements, at the Serbia level and for urban and other areas. The urban and other areas within four regions were identified as the main sampling strata and the sample was selected in two stages. Within each stratum, a specified number of enumeration areas were selected systematically with probability proportional to size. After a household listing was carried out within the selected enumeration areas, the listed households were divided into households with and without children under 5, and a separate systematic sample of households was selected for each group. A total of 1976 Roma households were selected: 1187 households with children and 789 households without children. The 2014 Serbia Roma Settlements Multiple Indicator Cluster Survey sample is not self-weighting. For the reporting of the results, sample weights were used. A more detailed description of the sample design can be found in Appendix A. Questionnaires Four sets of questionnaires were used in the survey: 1) a household questionnaire which was used to collect basic demographic information on all de jure household members (usual residents), the household, and the dwelling; 2) a questionnaire for 7 Official statistics in Serbia do not include a specific definition for rural settlements. Instead, an “administrative-legal” criteria is applied that designates settlements as either “Urban” or “Other”. Urban settlements are recognised as such by an act of the local self-government, with all other settlements falling into the category of “Other”. Monitoring the situation of children and women 5 individual women administered in each household to all women age 15-49 years; 3) an under-5 questionnaire, administered to mothers (or caretakers) for all children under 5 living in the household; and 4) a questionnaire for vaccination records at the health facility. The questionnaires included the following modules: The Household Questionnaire included the following modules:  List of Household Members  Education8  Child Labour  Child Discipline  Attitudes Toward Children with Disabilities9  Household Characteristics  Cash Benefit10  Water and Sanitation The Questionnaire for Individual Women was administered to all women age 15-49 years living in the households, and included the following modules:  Woman’s Background  Fertility11  Desire for Last Birth  Maternal and Newborn Health12  Illness Symptoms  Contraception13  Unmet Need  Attitudes Toward Domestic Violence  Marriage/Union  Life Satisfaction The Questionnaire for Children Under Five was administered to mothers (or caretakers) of children under 5 years of age14 living in the households. Normally, the questionnaire was administered to mothers of under-5 children; in cases when the mother was not listed in the household roster, a primary caretaker for the child was identified and interviewed. The questionnaire included the following modules:  Age  Birth Registration  Birth Grant15  Early Childhood Development16  Breastfeeding and Dietary Intake  Immunization  Anthropometry 8 This module included survey-specific questions about age at the start of primary school and attendance in the compulsory preparatory preschool program (PPP). 9 Module Attitudes toward Children with Disabilities is a survey-specific module that includes questions on different attitudes toward children with disabilities. 10 Module Cash Benefit is a survey-specific module that includes questions on key child-related cash benefits in Serbia. 11 This module included survey-specific questions about wasted pregnancies. 12 This module included survey-specific questions about visits conducted at home by auxiliary (patronage) nurses, attendance to childbirth preparation programmes and stay of the child and mother in the same room after birth. 13 This module included survey-specific questions about knowledge of contraceptive methods and the use of methods to delay or avoid pregnancy. 14 The terms “children under 5”, “children age 0-4 years”, and “children age 0-59 months” are used interchangeably in this report. 15 The module Birth Grant is a survey-specific module related to the country-specific cash benefit programme. 16 This module included survey-specific questions on the type of facility in which the child attends an ECE programme, and the reasons for non-attendance. The age group for the MICS question on engagement of adults with children in activities that promote learning and school readiness was broadened from 3-4 years to 1-4 years. 6 Serbia Multiple Indicator Cluster Survey 2014 and Serbia Roma Settlements Multiple Indicator Cluster Survey 2014 The questionnaires are based on the MICS5 model questionnaires17. From the English version of the MICS5 model, the questionnaires were customised and translated into Serbian and were pre-tested in Zrenjanin during November 2013. Based on the results of the pre-test, modifications were made to the wording and translation of the questionnaires. A copy of the 2014 Serbia MICS and 2014 Serbia Roma Settlements MICS questionnaires is provided in Appendix F18. In addition to the administration of questionnaires, fieldwork teams visited health facilities to collect immunization records of children age under 3 years and measured the weights and heights of children age under 5 years. Details and findings of these observations and measurements are provided in the respective section of the report. Training and Fieldwork Training for the fieldwork was conducted for 14 days in January 2014 for both surveys. Training included lectures on interviewing techniques and the contents of the questionnaires, and mock interviews between trainees to gain practice in asking questions. Towards the end of the training period, trainees spent 2 days in practice interviewing in Zrenjanin in both urban and other areas. Trainees also practiced measuring the weights and heights of children in 5 kindergartens in Zrenjanin. The data were collected by 11 teams — 8 teams for the general population and 3 teams for Roma settlements; each team was comprised of 4 interviewers, one editor, one measurer and a supervisor (the editor or supervisor was also the driver). Fieldwork began on 1 February 2014 and concluded on 30 April 2014 for the 2014 Serbia MICS and on 15 April 2014 for the 2014 Serbia Roma Settlements MICS. Data Processing Data were entered using CSPro software, Version 5.0. The data entry was carried out by 8 data entry operators using 8 microcomputers, with support of 1 data entry supervisor. For quality assurance purposes, all questionnaires were double- entered and internal consistency checks were performed. Procedures and standard programmes developed under the global MICS programme and adapted to the 2014 Serbia MICS and 2014 Serbia Roma Settlements MICS questionnaires were used throughout. Data processing began simultaneously with data collection in February 2014 and was completed in May 2014 for both surveys. Data were analysed using the Statistical Package for Social Sciences (SPSS) software, Version 21. Model syntax and tabulation plans developed by UNICEF were customized and used for the standard MICS modules while new syntaxes and tabulation plans were developed for non-standard MICS modules and questions. The Report Structure As noted before, this report presents findings from the 2014 Serbia MICS and 2014 Serbia Roma Settlements MICS. Although they are two independent surveys, the decision was made to present findings in a joint report to facilitate the use and comparability of data. Each subchapter starts with a common introduction. After that, there are explanations that refer to the 2014 Serbia MICS and 2014 Serbia Roma Settlements MICS findings, respectively. In order to visually differentiate findings coming from the two surveys, the parts of the report that describe findings from the 2014 Serbia Roma Settlements MICS are shaded in a different colour. 17 The model MICS5 questionnaires can be found at http://www.childinfo.org/mics5_questionnaire.html 18 The same questionnaires were used for both surveys. Monitoring the situation of children and women 7 How to Read the Tables It should be noted that when education is used as a background characteristic in the tables, primary and secondary education levels are defined in line with the national education system classification (eight grades of primary school and four grades of secondary school). The ethnicity background characteristic is presented only in tables with findings from the 2014 MICS Serbia. However, this background characteristic is not presented where data for all ethnic groups apart from one (mostly Serbian) are based on less than 25 unweighted cases. The findings related to the education category “Higher” within the 2014 Serbia Roma Settlements MICS, are mainly based on less than 25 unweighted cases and are therefore too small to be reported separately. As such, the category “Higher” has been combined with the category “Secondary” and presented as “Secondary or higher”. Age groups presented in this report also include those persons who had reached the full age indicated by the upper limit for an age group, for instance, respondents aged 15-49 include persons who had reached a full 49 years of age, while the age group of children aged 20-23 months includes those who had reached a full 23 months. Tables also contain particular marking that is used consistently to indicate the following:  (*) — an asterisk in tables indicate that the percentage or proportion is based on less than 25 unweighted cases and are therefore too small to be reported  (number) — a figure in parenthesis indicates that the percentage or proportion is based on 25 to 49 unweighted cases and should be treated with caution  (R) — the letter R after a table/figure code indicates that it refers to the Roma settlements sample 8 Serbia Multiple Indicator Cluster Survey 2014 and Serbia Roma Settlements Multiple Indicator Cluster Survey 2014 IIIIII SAMPLE COVERAGE AND SAMPLE COVERAGE AND THE CHARACTERISTICS THE CHARACTERISTICS OF HOUSEHOLDS AND OF HOUSEHOLDS AND RESPONDENTSRESPONDENTS Sample Coverage and the Characteristics of Households and Respondents for Serbia Sample Coverage Of the 7351 households selected for the sample, 6959 were found to be occupied. Of these, 6191 were successfully interviewed for a household response rate of 89 percent. In the interviewed households, 4997 women (age 15-49 years) were identified. Of these, 4713 were successfully interviewed, yielding a women’s response rate of 94 percent within the interviewed households. There were 2773 children under age five listed in the household questionnaires. Questionnaires were completed for 2720 of these children, which corresponds to a response rate of 98 percent within interviewed households. Overall response rates of 84 and 87 percent were calculated for the completion of the women and children under five questionnaires, respectively (Table HH.1). Table HH.1: Results of household, women’s and under-5 interviews Number of households, women and children under 5 by results of the household, women’s and under-5’s interview results, and household, women’s and under-5’s response rates, Serbia, 2014   Total Area Region Urban Other Belgrade Vojvodina Sumadija and Western Serbia Southern and Eastern Serbia Households  Sampled 7351 4617 2734 1863 1976 1886 1626 Occupied 6959 4329 2630 1700 1888 1809 1562 Interviewed 6191 3702 2489 1317 1701 1704 1469 Household response rate 89.0 85.5 94.6 77.5 90.1 94.2 94.0 Women   Eligible 4997 2967 2030 1070 1311 1403 1213 Interviewed 4713 2831 1882 1025 1241 1336 1111 Women’s response rate 94.3 95.4 92.7 95.8 94.7 95.2 91.6 Women’s overall response rate 83.9 81.6 87.7 74.2 85.3 89.7 86.1 Children under 5  Eligible 2773 1739 1034 662 734 752 625 Mothers/caretakers interviewed 2720 1710 1010 642 726 746 606 Under-5’s response rate 98.1 98.3 97.7 97.0 98.9 99.2 97.0 Under-5’s overall response rate 87.3 84.1 92.4 75.1 89.1 93.4 91.2 Monitoring the situation of children and women 9 Response rates across regions and areas were, as expected, characterised by lower response rates in urban areas (about 86 percent compared with 95 percent in other areas). Response was also lower in the Belgrade region (about 78 percent) and the results for this region should be interpreted with some caution, as the response rate is lower than 85 percent. Characteristics of Households The weighted age and sex distribution of the survey populations are provided in Table HH.2. The distribution is also used to produce the population pyramid in Figure HH.1. In the 6191 households successfully interviewed in the survey, 19212 household members were listed. Of these, 9380 were males, and 9832 were females. Table HH.2: Household age distribution by sex Percent and frequency distribution of the household population by five-years age groups, dependency age groups, and by child (age 0-17 years) and adult populations (age 18 or more), by sex, Serbia, 2014 Total Males Females Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent Total 19212 100.0 9380 100.0 9832 100.0 Age  0-4 897 4.7 459 4.9 438 4.5 5-9 995 5.2 478 5.1 517 5.3 10-14 959 5.0 476 5.1 483 4.9 15-19 1085 5.6 606 6.5 480 4.9 20-24 1111 5.8 569 6.1 542 5.5 25-29 1170 6.1 566 6.0 604 6.1 30-34 1281 6.7 646 6.9 635 6.5 35-39 1335 6.9 668 7.1 667 6.8 40-44 1299 6.8 650 6.9 649 6.6 45-49 1303 6.8 635 6.8 668 6.8 50-54 1349 7.0 647 6.9 701 7.1 55-59 1467 7.6 723 7.7 744 7.6 60-64 1572 8.2 764 8.1 808 8.2 65-69 1080 5.6 509 5.4 571 5.8 70-74 855 4.4 380 4.1 475 4.8 75-79 766 4.0 337 3.6 429 4.4 80-84 421 2.2 182 1.9 239 2.4 85+ 265 1.4 86 0.9 179 1.8 Missing/DK 2 0.0 0 0.0 2 0.0 Dependency age groups  0-14 2851 14.8 1413 15.1 1438 14.6 15-64 12971 67.5 6473 69.0 6499 66.1 65+ 3387 17.6 1494 15.9 1893 19.3 Missing/DK 2 0.0 0 0.0 2 0.0 Child and adult populations  Children age 0-17 years 3471 18.1 1767 18.8 1704 17.3 Adults age 18+ years 15739 81.9 7613 81.2 8127 82.7 Missing/DK 2 0.0 0 0.0 2 0.0 10 Serbia Multiple Indicator Cluster Survey 2014 and Serbia Roma Settlements Multiple Indicator Cluster Survey 2014 The age and sex distribution of the 2014 Serbia MICS survey by 5-year-groups is in accordance with demographic data from the 2011 Census. The age distribution indicates negative population growth, with a low proportion of children aged under five and a high proportion of the elderly. The proportion of children age 0-14 years in the overall population is 15 percent and is lower by 3 percentage points than the proportion of the population age 65+ that has a share of 18 percent. Children up to 18 years of age constitute 18 percent of the population. The largest two 5-year groups are 55-59 and 60-64 age-groups (8 percent). The male-female ratio shows some variations and after 60 years of life the number of women exceeds that of men. Figure HH.1: Age and sex distribution of household population, Serbia, 2014 Tables HH.3, HH.4 and HH.5 provide basic information on the households, female respondents age 15-49 years and children under 5. Both unweighted and weighted numbers are presented. Such information is essential for the interpretation of findings presented later in the report and provides background information on the representativeness of the survey sample. The remaining tables in this report are presented only with weighted numbers19. Table HH.3 provides basic background information on the households, including region, area, number of household members as well as sex, education and ethnicity20 of the head of household as shown in the table. These background characteristics are used in subsequent tables in this report; the figures in the table are also intended to show the numbers of observations by major categories of analysis in the report. The weighted and unweighted total number of households are equal, since sample weights were normalized. The gender structure for heads of households is almost the same, when comparing the 2011 Census and 2014 Serbia MICS data. Namely, 30 percent of heads of household in the 2011 Census and 29 percent in the 2014 Serbia MICS, are female. About 62 percent of households are urban, while the rest are other. The regional distribution is very similar to the Census data. The Vojvodina region comprises the largest number of households (29 percent), while the smallest number of households is in Southern and Eastern Serbia (21 percent). 19 See Appendix A: Sample Design, for more details on sample weights. 20 This was determined by asking “To what ethnic group does the head of this household belong?” Please refer to the Household Questionnaire in Appendix F for a detailed view of the questions. 5 4 3 2 1 0 1 2 3 4 5 0-4 5-9 10-14 15-19 20-24 25-29 30-34 35-39 40-44 45-49 50-54 55-59 60-64 65-69 70-74 75-79 80-84 85+ Percent Age Males Females Note: 2 household members with missing age and/or sex are excluded Monitoring the situation of children and women 11 Table HH.3: Household composition Percent and frequency distribution of households by selected characteristics, Serbia, 2014   Weighted percent Number of households Weighted Unweighted Total 100.0 6191 6191 Sex of household head  Male 71.5 4428 4684 Female 28.5 1763 1507 Region  Belgrade 23.5 1458 1317 Vojvodina 28.8 1785 1701 Sumadija and Western Serbia 26.6 1645 1704 Southern and Eastern Serbia 21.1 1303 1469 Area  Urban 61.6 3816 3702 Other 38.4 2375 2489 Number of household members  1 18.9 1167 850 2 24.2 1497 1100 3 18.9 1167 1175 4 19.0 1175 1325 5 10.4 644 832 6 5.4 333 520 7 1.8 113 220 8 0.7 44 85 9 0.3 20 39 10+ 0.5 30 45 Education of household head  None 2.0 125 108 Primary 26.6 1645 1582 Secondary 48.0 2970 3044 Higher 23.3 1445 1450 Missing/DK 0.1 6 7 Ethnicity of household head  Serbian 86.7 5365 5384 Hungarian 4.7 289 261 Bosnian 1.1 70 86 Roma 1.6 98 129 Other 4.8 294 270 Does not want to declare 1.2 72 58 Missing/DK 0.0 3 3 Mean household size 3.1 6191 6191 The table also shows the weighted average household size in Serbia estimated by the survey which is 3.1 members per household. 2011 Census data shows that the average household size in Serbia was 2.9. There are some differences in the proportion of households with 5 members (10.4 from the survey and 7.9 from the 2011 Census), and 6+ members (8.7 from the survey and 6.7 from the 2011 Census). The majority of households have two to four members (62 percent). 12 Serbia Multiple Indicator Cluster Survey 2014 and Serbia Roma Settlements Multiple Indicator Cluster Survey 2014 Characteristics of Female Respondents and Children Under 5 Tables HH.4 and HH.5 provide information on the background characteristics of female respondents 15-49 years of age and of children under age 5. In these tables, the total numbers of weighted and unweighted observations are equal, since sample weights have been normalized (standardized)21. In addition to providing useful information on the background characteristics of women and children under age 5, the tables are also intended to show the numbers of observations in each background category. These categories are used in the subsequent tabulations of this report. Table HH.4 provides background characteristics of female respondents 15-49 years old. The table includes information on the distribution of women according to region, area, age, marital/union status, motherhood status, births in last two years, education22, wealth index quintiles23, 24, and ethnicity of the head of household. In the tables where denominators for wealth index quintiles are too small, data are merged into two groups — the poorest 60 percent (bottom three wealth quintiles) and the richest 40 percent (top two wealth quintiles) — in order to allow for the presentation of data by wealth status. Approximately 27 percent of interviewed eligible women live in Sumadija and Western Serbia and a similar percentage lives in Vojvodina (26 percent). The distribution among the Belgrade region and Southern and Eastern Serbia is almost equal, 23 percent. This pattern was expected and similar to the data from the 2011 Census. The proportion of younger women is lower, with 11 percent in the 15-19 years age group. Around 60 percent of all women in this sample are currently married, while 32 percent have never been married. Distribution by motherhood status is similar: 61 percent of women have given birth, compared to 39 percent that have never given birth. The majority of interviewed women have secondary education (55 percent), while the proportion of women with no education is less than 1 percent and with primary education is 10 percent. Those with higher education constitute approximately 34 percent. These data do not correspond to the 2011 Census data due to the different methodology. Unlike the 2011 Census, MICS records the highest level of education ever attended, irrespective of whether that level was completed. As far as wealth index quintiles are concerned, fewer women live in households within the poorest quintile — about 13 percent — while 20 to 23 percent of women live in the households within the remaining wealth quintiles. Background characteristics of children under 5 are presented in Table HH.5. These include the distribution of children by several attributes: sex, region and area, age in months, respondent type, mother’s (or caretaker’s) education, wealth index, and ethnicity. The proportion of male and female children in the under-5 sample is almost the same, 51 and 49 percent respectively. The majority of children under 5 in Serbia live in urban areas (about 63 percent). The proportion of children in Southern and Eastern Serbia is smaller than in other regions (about 19 percent) which is expected due to the concentration of the population in big and more developed cities. The majority of children under 5 (51 percent) have a mother with secondary education. 21 See Appendix A: Sample Design, for more details on sample weights. 22 Throughout this report, unless otherwise stated, “education” refers to highest educational level ever attended by the respondent when it is used as a background characteristic. 23 The wealth index is a composite indicator of wealth. To construct the wealth index, principal components analysis is 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 generate weights (factor scores) for each of the household items used. First, initial factor scores are calculated for the total sample. Then, separate factor scores are calculated for households in urban and other (rural) areas. Finally, the urban and other factor scores are regressed on the initial factor scores to obtain the combined, final factor scores for the total sample. This is carried out to minimize the urban bias in the wealth index values. Each household in the total sample is then assigned a wealth score based on the assets owned by that household and on the final factor scores obtained as described above. The survey household population is then ranked according to the wealth score of the household they are living in, and is finally divided into 5 equal parts (quintiles) from lowest (poorest) to highest (richest). In the 2014 Serbia MICS, the following assets were used in these calculations: source of drinking water; location of water source; type of sanitation facility; sharing of sanitation facilities; number of rooms used for sleeping; main material of dwelling floor, roof and exterior walls; type of household fuel; presence in the household of electricity, a television, radio, non-mobile phone, refrigerator, wardrobe, table with chairs, bed, iron, hair dryer, water heater, vacuum cleaner, freezer, electric stove, personal washing machine, drying machine, dishwashing machine, microwave, Cable TV/total TV, PC/ laptop, Internet connection, air conditioner, presence in the household of a watch, mobile phone, bicycle, motorcycle/scooter, car, truck, tractor; possession of a bank account; ownership of dwelling; land ownership; ownership of livestock: cattle, milk cows or bulls, goats, sheep, chickens, other poultry, pigs and bees; and applying for financial social assistance. 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. Rutstein, S. O. and Johnson, K., 2004. The DHS Wealth Index. DHS Comparative Reports No. 6. Calverton, Maryland: ORC Macro and Rutstein, S. O., 2008. The DHS Wealth Index: Approaches for Rural and Urban Areas. DHS Working Papers No. 60. Calverton, Maryland: Macro International Inc. 24 When describing survey results by wealth quintiles, appropriate terminology is used when referring to individual household members, such as for instance “women in the richest household population”, which is used interchangeably with “women in the wealthiest survey population” and similar. Monitoring the situation of children and women 13 Table HH.4: Women’s background characteristics Percent and frequency distribution of women age 15-49 years by selected background characteristics, Serbia, 2014   Weighted percent Number of women Weighted Unweighted Total 100.0 4713 4713 Region  Belgrade 23.4 1105 1025 Vojvodina 26.3 1238 1241 Sumadija and Western Serbia 27.4 1293 1336 Southern and Eastern Serbia 22.9 1077 1111 Area  Urban 60.9 2870 2831 Other 39.1 1843 1882 Age  15-19 10.9 515 388 20-24 11.9 562 489 25-29 14.2 667 865 30-34 14.9 704 1065 35-39 16.1 758 813 40-44 15.8 745 570 45-49 16.2 763 523 Marital/Union status  Currently married/in union 60.4 2846 3436 Widowed 1.3 60 45 Divorced 4.3 201 159 Separated 1.8 86 98 Never married/in union 32.3 1520 975 Motherhood and recent births  Never gave birth 38.8 1827 1136 Ever gave birth 61.2 2886 3577 Gave birth in last two years 8.2 384 959 No birth in last two years 53.1 2502 2618 Education  None 0.4 20 32 Primary 10.0 473 521 Secondary 55.2 2604 2572 Higher 34.3 1616 1587 Missing/DK 0.0 0 1 Wealth index quintile  Poorest 12.7 600 662 Second 20.2 954 897 Middle 21.8 1025 1001 Fourth 22.0 1035 995 Richest 23.3 1099 1158 Ethnicity of household head  Serbian 87.6 4131 4107 Hungarian 3.6 172 160 Bosnian 1.7 80 91 Roma 2.2 102 142 Other 3.6 170 167 Does not want to declare 1.2 54 42 Missing/DK 0.1 4 4 14 Serbia Multiple Indicator Cluster Survey 2014 and Serbia Roma Settlements Multiple Indicator Cluster Survey 2014 Table HH.5: Under-5’s background characteristics Percent and frequency distribution of children under five years of age by selected characteristics, Serbia, 2014   Weighted percent Number of under-5 children Weighted Unweighted Total 100.0 2720 2720 Sex  Male 51.5 1400 1367 Female 48.5 1320 1353 Region  Belgrade 26.9 733 642 Vojvodina 27.7 753 726 Sumadija and Western Serbia 25.9 706 746 Southern and Eastern Serbia 19.4 528 606 Area  Urban 63.3 1722 1710 Other 36.7 998 1010 Age  0-5 months 11.8 321 169 6-11 months 9.0 245 271 12-23 months 18.0 489 524 24-35 months 17.1 465 545 36-47 months 20.0 545 582 48-59 months 24.1 655 629 Respondent to the under-5 questionnaire  Mother 97.3 2645 2679 Other primary caretaker 2.7 75 41 Mother’s educationa  None 1.2 32 32 Primary 11.4 309 285 Secondary 50.7 1380 1405 Higher 36.7 999 998 Wealth index quintile  Poorest 15.1 411 394 Second 15.6 425 457 Middle 19.2 522 544 Fourth 22.4 609 583 Richest 27.7 752 742 Ethnicity of household head  Serbian 84.8 2306 2348 Hungarian 3.0 83 89 Bosnian 2.2 61 67 Roma 3.4 91 98 Other 5.1 138 99 Does not want to declare 1.5 40 18 Missing/DK 0.0 1 1 a In this table and throughout the report, mother’s education refers to educational attainment of mothers as well as caretakers of children under 5, who are the respondents to the under-5 questionnaire if the mother is deceased or is living elsewhere. Monitoring the situation of children and women 15 Housing Characteristics, Asset Ownership, and Wealth Quintiles Tables HH.6, HH.7 and HH.8 provide further details on household level characteristics. Table HH.6 presents characteristics of housing, disaggregated by area and region, distributed by whether the dwelling has electricity, the main materials of the flooring, roof, and exterior walls, as well as the number of rooms used for sleeping. All household in Serbia have electricity. There are no differences by area or by region. The majority of households have a finished floor (99 percent), a finished roof (99 percent) and finished exterior walls (98 percent). There are no differentials by area or region. The mean number of persons per room used for sleeping in Serbia is 1.62 with minimal regional variations. Table HH.6: Housing characteristics Percent distribution of households by selected housing characteristics, according to area of residence and regions, Serbia, 2014   Total Area Region Urban Other Belgrade Vojvodina Sumadija and Western Serbia Southern and Eastern Serbia Electricity  Yes 99.7 99.8 99.4 99.7 99.6 99.6 99.8 No 0.3 0.2 0.6 0.3 0.4 0.4 0.2 Missing/DK 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Flooring  Natural floor 0.4 0.1 1.0 0.1 0.7 0.2 0.7 Rudimentary floor 0.6 0.3 1.1 0.1 0.7 0.8 0.7 Finished floor 99.0 99.6 97.9 99.8 98.6 99.0 98.5 Other 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 Missing/DK 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 Roof  Natural roofing 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Rudimentary roofing 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.2 Finished roofing 98.8 98.2 99.6 98.9 97.6 99.2 99.6 Other 1.0 1.5 0.4 0.5 2.3 0.8 0.2 Missing/DK 0.1 0.2 0.0 0.5 0.1 0.0 0.0 Exterior walls  Natural walls 0.2 0.0 0.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.8 Rudimentary walls 1.3 0.5 2.6 0.4 2.5 0.4 1.8 Finished walls 98.2 99.1 96.8 99.0 97.1 99.5 97.3 Other 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.1 0.4 0.1 0.0 Missing/DK 0.2 0.3 0.0 0.6 0.0 0.1 0.1 Rooms used for sleeping  1 37.1 38.8 34.3 37.2 43.4 36.2 29.3 2 37.4 40.3 32.9 42.0 34.1 35.6 39.3 3 or more 25.4 20.8 32.8 20.7 22.4 28.1 31.4 Missing/DK 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.0 Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 Number of households 6191 3816 2375 1458 1785 1645 1303 Mean number of persons per room used for sleeping 1.62 1.63 1.59 1.60 1.59 1.64 1.63 16 Serbia Multiple Indicator Cluster Survey 2014 and Serbia Roma Settlements Multiple Indicator Cluster Survey 2014 In Table HH.7 households are distributed according to ownership of assets by households and by individual household members. This also includes ownership of a dwelling. Table HH.7: Household and personal assets Percentage of households by ownership of selected household and personal assets, and percent distribution by ownership of dwelling, according to area of residence and regions, Serbia, 2014   Total Area Region Urban Other Belgrade Vojvodina Sumadija and Western Serbia Southern and Eastern Serbia Percentage of households that own a  Radio 77.7 78.4 76.7 80.6 79.8 77.5 71.9 Television 98.6 99.1 97.9 98.9 97.9 99.1 98.8 Non-mobile telephone 88.9 91.2 85.2 92.3 86.7 91.0 85.5 Refrigerator 98.3 99.2 96.8 99.4 98.1 98.6 97.1 Wardrobe 99.1 99.4 98.6 99.5 99.4 98.7 98.8 Table with chairs 99.2 99.3 99.1 99.2 99.6 99.1 99.0 Bed 99.9 99.9 100.0 99.7 100.0 100.0 100.0 Iron 95.7 97.7 92.5 98.6 95.1 95.6 93.4 Hair dryer 89.7 92.9 84.6 95.9 89.1 89.4 83.9 Water heater 94.9 96.8 91.7 97.2 94.5 95.0 92.5 Vacuum cleaner 93.8 96.4 89.6 96.9 92.2 94.7 91.3 Freezer 83.6 78.9 91.2 66.9 89.1 89.1 88.0 Electrical stove 95.3 98.3 90.5 98.4 95.3 93.9 93.5 Washing machine 93.6 96.6 88.8 97.4 93.6 93.2 89.9 Drying machine 7.2 8.2 5.6 6.9 11.0 5.8 3.9 Dishwasher 19.1 23.4 12.2 32.1 14.9 16.7 13.5 Microwave 35.5 39.9 28.5 39.0 40.6 32.0 29.0 Cable/Total TV 61.7 76.2 38.5 83.8 60.7 52.8 49.6 PC/Laptop 63.6 70.4 52.8 72.9 62.6 57.7 62.2 Internet 57.5 66.0 43.8 70.1 57.5 49.6 53.3 Air conditioner 33.4 44.2 16.0 58.9 35.0 20.3 19.3 Percentage of households that own  Agricultural land 41.3 24.8 68.0 20.6 43.7 47.9 53.0 Farm animals/Livestock 26.8 9.4 54.8 9.6 28.7 34.1 34.4 Percentage of households where at least one member owns or has a  Watch 68.9 72.9 62.6 73.0 64.5 72.1 66.5 Mobile telephone 90.7 93.5 86.2 95.0 87.8 90.8 89.7 Bicycle 56.1 53.2 60.7 38.4 79.5 45.5 57.2 Motorcycle or scooter 11.5 9.4 14.9 6.5 15.5 10.3 13.3 Animal-drawn cart 1.1 0.2 2.7 0.4 0.8 1.1 2.5 Car 59.9 59.8 60.1 62.4 53.9 63.7 60.5 Truck 2.2 1.4 3.5 0.8 3.0 2.7 2.1 Tractor 16.2 3.9 35.9 4.2 13.6 22.8 24.7 Bank account 83.0 88.0 74.9 87.1 86.5 79.1 78.4 Ownership of dwelling  Owned by a household member 86.9 84.7 90.4 85.8 86.8 89.5 85.0 Not owned 13.1 15.3 9.6 14.2 13.2 10.5 15.0 Rented 4.3 5.8 1.9 6.4 4.3 4.2 2.1 Other 8.8 9.5 7.8 7.8 8.9 6.4 12.9 Missing/DK 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 Number of households 6191 3816 2375 1458 1785 1645 1303 Monitoring the situation of children and women 17 99 percent of households own a television, a wardrobe, a table with a chair and 100 percent own a bed. Similarly, over 90 percent of households own a refrigerator, an iron, a water heater, a vacuum cleaner, an electrical stove and a washing machine, and 78 percent of households own a radio. There are no notable differences by area and region. Some differences between regions and urban/other areas are observed related to the ownership of a drying machine and a dishwasher. 64 percent of households in Serbia own a PC or a laptop, and 58 percent have access to the Internet. There are differences by area and region related to access to the Internet with higher access observed in urban areas and in the Belgrade region. 41 percent of households own agricultural land and 27 percent own farm animals/livestock. The majority of households (87 percent) inhabit a dwelling owned by a household member and 4 percent of households inhabit dwelling that are rented. In 91 percent of households in Serbia at least one member has a mobile telephone. In 60 percent at least one member owns a car, and in 83 percent at least one member has a bank account. Table HH.8 shows how the household populations in areas and regions are distributed according to household wealth quintiles as well as the household population distribution by sex, education and ethnicity of the head of household. Table HH.8: Wealth quintiles Percent distribution of the household population by wealth index quintiles, according to area of residence, region, and sex, education and ethnicity of household head, Serbia, 2014   Wealth index quintiles Total Number of household membersPoorest Second Middle Fourth Richest Total 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.1 20.0 100.0 19212 Area  Urban 10.0 14.4 20.4 26.7 28.6 100.0 11345 Other 34.5 28.1 19.5 10.5 7.5 100.0 7867 Region  Belgrade 8.7 13.1 18.7 25.6 33.9 100.0 4345 Vojvodina 19.5 21.7 20.2 21.1 17.5 100.0 5113 Sumadija and Western Serbia 22.9 22.1 22.3 16.6 16.0 100.0 5284 Southern and Eastern Serbia 28.1 22.2 18.3 17.6 13.9 100.0 4470 Sex of household head  Male 19.2 19.7 20.1 20.2 20.8 100.0 15150 Female 23.1 20.9 19.5 19.7 16.9 100.0 4062 Education of household head  None 58.5 22.7 4.4 13.3 1.1 100.0 352 Primary 43.4 23.9 16.9 10.7 5.2 100.0 4906 Secondary 14.1 21.6 22.9 22.6 18.8 100.0 9740 Higher 3.2 11.6 18.3 25.4 41.5 100.0 4185 Missing/DK 5.4 0.0 21.2 65.3 8.1 100.0 30 Ethnicity of household head  Serbian 18.2 19.5 20.6 21.0 20.8 100.0 16761 Hungarian 24.6 25.9 18.9 19.3 11.3 100.0 746 Bosnian 39.5 37.2 12.2 4.9 6.1 100.0 290 Roma 74.3 11.2 3.7 6.7 4.1 100.0 426 Other 21.0 24.8 21.1 15.9 17.2 100.0 779 Does not want to declare 7.1 14.4 18.6 15.7 44.2 100.0 201 Missing/DK 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 100.0 8 18 Serbia Multiple Indicator Cluster Survey 2014 and Serbia Roma Settlements Multiple Indicator Cluster Survey 2014 The share of the household population living in the poorest wealth quintile is higher in other areas (35 percent) than in urban (10 percent) and is the highest in Southern and Eastern Serbia (28 percent) compared to 9 percent in the Belgrade region. There is a positive correlation between the education of the head of household and the wealth index. The household population where the head of household has no education or has only primary education has the highest share in the poorest wealth quintile (59 and 43 percent respectively). The majority of the household population where the head of household has declared as Roma live in the poorest wealth quintile (74 percent). Monitoring the situation of children and women 19Monitoring the situation of children and women 19 Sample Coverage and the Characteristics of Households and Respondents for Roma Settlements Sample Coverage Of the 1976 households selected for the sample, 1803 were found to be occupied. Of these, 1743 were successfully interviewed for a household response rate of 97 percent. In the interviewed households, 2162 women (age 15-49 years) were identified. Of these, 2081 were successfully interviewed, yielding a response rate of 96 percent within interviewed households. There were 1556 children under age five listed in the household questionnaire. Questionnaires were completed for 1515 of these children, which corresponds to a response rate of 97 percent within interviewed households. Overall response rates of 93 and 94 are calculated for individual interviews of women and under-5’s, respectively (Table HH.1R). Table HH.1R: Results of household, women’s and under-5 interviews Number of households, women and children under 5 by results of the household, women’s and under-5’s interviews, and household, women’s and under-5’s response rates, Serbia Roma Settlements, 2014   Total Area Urban Other Households  Sampled 1976 1277 699 Occupied 1803 1167 636 Interviewed 1743 1134 609 Household response rate 96.7 97.2 95.8 Women  Eligible 2162 1481 681 Interviewed 2081 1424 657 Women’s response rate 96.3 96.2 96.5 Women’s overall response rate 93.1 93.4 92.4 Children under 5  Eligible 1556 1091 465 Mothers/caretakers interviewed 1515 1065 450 Under-5’s response rate 97.4 97.6 96.8 Under-5’s overall response rate 94.1 94.9 92.7 Response rates across areas were, as expected, characterised by similarly high response rates in urban and other areas (97 and 96 percent respectively). A similar pattern exists for women and children under 5. Characteristics of Households The weighted age and sex distribution of the survey populations are provided in Table HH.2R. The distribution is also used to produce the population pyramid in Figure HH.1R. In the 1976 households successfully interviewed in the survey, 8595 household members were listed. Of these, 4286 were males, and 4309 were females. 20 Serbia Multiple Indicator Cluster Survey 2014 and Serbia Roma Settlements Multiple Indicator Cluster Survey 201420 Serbia Multiple Indicator Cluster Survey 2014 and Serbia Roma Settlements Multiple Indicator Cluster Survey 2014 Table HH.2R: Household age distribution by sex Percent and frequency distribution of the household population by five-years age groups, dependency age groups, and by child (age 0-17 years) and adult populations (age 18 or more), by sex, Serbia Roma Settlements, 2014   Total Males Females Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent Total 8595 100.0 4286 100.0 4309 100.0 Age  0-4 1076 12.5 564 13.2 512 11.9 5-9 1011 11.8 466 10.9 545 12.7 10-14 904 10.5 435 10.1 469 10.9 15-19 788 9.2 401 9.4 387 9.0 20-24 752 8.8 371 8.7 381 8.8 25-29 632 7.4 343 8.0 289 6.7 30-34 539 6.3 250 5.8 288 6.7 35-39 539 6.3 266 6.2 273 6.3 40-44 513 6.0 261 6.1 252 5.9 45-49 478 5.6 248 5.8 231 5.4 50-54 397 4.6 210 4.9 187 4.3 55-59 310 3.6 146 3.4 164 3.8 60-64 310 3.6 161 3.8 149 3.4 65-69 161 1.9 70 1.6 91 2.1 70-74 105 1.2 48 1.1 56 1.3 75-79 54 0.6 32 0.7 23 0.5 80-84 13 0.1 9 0.2 4 0.1 85+ 8 0.1 3 0.1 5 0.1 Missing/DK 5 0.1 2 0.1 3 0.1 Dependency age groups  0-14 2991 34.8 1464 34.2 1526 35.4 15-64 5259 61.2 2658 62.0 2601 60.4 65+ 341 4.0 162 3.8 179 4.2 Missing/DK 5 0.1 2 0.1 3 0.1 Child and adult populations  Children age 0-17 years 3460 40.2 1718 40.1 1742 40.4 Adults age 18+ years 5130 59.7 2566 59.9 2564 59.5 Missing/DK 5 0.1 2 0.1 3 0.1 The age distribution of the 2014 Serbia Roma Settlements MICS indicates that the proportion of children under the age of 5 is highest (about 13 percent), and then in each subsequent age group the proportion of the population decreases. Children up to 17 years of age constitute about 40 percent of the population, while only 4 percent belong to the group over 65 years of age. There was almost no difference between the male and female distribution in the broad age groups, i.e. 0-14 years, 15-64 years and 65 years and above. Monitoring the situation of children and women 21Monitoring the situation of children and women 21 Figure HH.1R: Age and sex distribution of household population, Serbia Roma Settlements, 2014 Table HH.3R: Household composition Percent and frequency distribution of households by selected characteristics, Serbia Roma Settlements, 2014   Weighted percent Number of households Weighted Unweighted Total 100.0 1743 1743 Sex of household head  Male 82.4 1437 1439 Female 17.6 306 304 Area  Urban 70.3 1225 1134 Other 29.7 518 609 Number of household members  1 5.4 94 80 2 14.7 256 192 3 11.0 192 172 4 14.7 256 280 5 16.6 289 300 6 14.4 250 281 7 9.8 171 176 8 5.2 90 109 9 3.6 63 64 10+ 4.7 82 89 Education of household head  None 16.2 282 279 Primary 69.4 1209 1228 Secondary or higher 14.4 250 234 Missing/DK 0.1 1 2 Mean household size 4.9 1743 1743 Males Females 8 6 4 2 0 2 4 6 8 0-4 5-9 10-14 15-19 20-24 25-29 30-34 35-39 40-44 45-49 50-54 55-59 60-64 65-69 70-74 75-79 80-84 85+ Percent Note: 5 household members with missing age and/or sex are excluded 22 Serbia Multiple Indicator Cluster Survey 2014 and Serbia Roma Settlements Multiple Indicator Cluster Survey 201422 Serbia Multiple Indicator Cluster Survey 2014 and Serbia Roma Settlements Multiple Indicator Cluster Survey 2014 Tables HH.3R, HH.4R and HH.5R provide basic information on the households, female respondents aged 15-49 and children under 5. Both unweighted and weighted numbers are presented. Such information is essential for the interpretation of findings presented later in the report and provide background information on the representativeness of the survey sample. The remaining tables in this report are presented only with weighted numbers25. Table HH.3R provides basic background information on the households, including the sex of the head of household, area, and number of household members and education of the head of household as shown in the table. These background characteristics are used in subsequent tables in this report. The figures in the table are also intended to show the numbers of observations by major categories of analysis in the report. The weighted and unweighted total number of households are equal, since sample weights were normalized. The table shows the weighted mean household size estimated by the survey. Gender structure for the heads of households indicates that 82 percent are men. About 70 percent of households are urban, while the rest are other. The majority of households (about 57 percent) have three to six members and about 69 percent of households have a household head with primary education. The survey estimated the average household size at 4.9 persons. Characteristics of Female Respondents and Children Under 5 Tables HH.4R and HH.5R provide information on the background characteristics of the female respondents 15-49 years of age and of children under age 5. In these tables, the total numbers of weighted and unweighted observations are equal, since sample weights have been normalized (standardized)25. In addition to providing useful information on the background characteristics of women and children under age five, the tables are also intended to show the numbers of observations in each background category. These categories are used in the subsequent tabulations of this report. Table HH.4R provides background characteristics of female respondents, age 15-49 years. The table includes information on the distribution of women according to area, age, marital/union status, motherhood status, births in the last two years preceding the survey, education26 and wealth index quintiles27, 28 or wealth index. In the tables where denominators for wealth index quintiles are too small, data are merged into two groups — the poorest 60 percent (bottom three wealth quintiles) and the richest 40 percent (top two wealth quintiles) — in order to allow for the presentation of data by wealth status. 25 See Appendix A: Sample Design, for more details on sample weights. 26 Throughout this report, unless otherwise stated, “education” refers to highest educational level ever attended by the respondent when it is used as a background characteristic. 27 The wealth index is a composite indicator of wealth. To construct the wealth index, principal components analysis is 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 generate weights (factor scores) for each of the items used. In 2014 Serbia Roma Settlements MICS final factor scores are calculated for the total sample, without separate factor scores for households in urban and other areas. Each household in the total sample is then assigned a wealth score based on the assets owned by that household and on the final factor scores obtained as described above. The survey household population is then ranked according to the wealth score of the household they are living in, and is finally divided into 5 equal parts (quintiles) from lowest (poorest) to highest (richest). In 2014 Serbia Roma Settlements MICS, the following assets were used in these calculations: source of drinking water; location of water source; type of sanitation facility; sharing of sanitation facilities; number of rooms used for sleeping; main material of dwelling floor, roof and exterior walls; type of household fuel; presence in the household of electricity, a television, radio, non-mobile phone, refrigerator, wardrobe, table with chairs, bed, iron, hair dryer, water heater, vacuum cleaner, freezer, electric stove, washing machine, drying machine, dishwashing machine, microwave, Cable TV/total TV, PC/laptop, Internet connection, air conditioner, presence in the household of a watch, mobile phone, bicycle, motorcycle/scooter, car, truck; possession of a bank account; ownership of dwelling; ownership of agricultural land; and applying for financial social assistance. The wealth index is assumed to capture underlying long-term wealth through information on 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. Rutstein, S. O. and Johnson, K., 2004. The DHS Wealth Index. DHS Comparative Reports No. 6. Calverton, Maryland: ORC Macro and Rutstein, S. O., 2008. The DHS Wealth Index: Approaches for Rural and Urban Areas. DHS Working Papers No. 60. Calverton, Maryland: Macro International Inc. 28 When describing survey results by wealth quintiles, appropriate terminology is used when referring to individual household members, such as for instance “women in the richest household population”, which is used interchangeably with “women in the wealthiest survey population” and similar. Monitoring the situation of children and women 23Monitoring the situation of children and women 23 Table HH.4R: Women’s background characteristics Percent and frequency distribution of women age 15-49 years by selected background characteristics, Serbia Roma Settlements, 2014   Weighted percent Number of women Weighted Unweighted Total 100.0 2081 2081 Area  Urban 74.2 1544 1424 Other 25.8 537 657 Age  15-19 18.3 382 377 20-24 18.1 377 440 25-29 13.7 284 350 30-34 13.8 288 276 35-39 12.9 267 229 40-44 12.2 254 217 45-49 11.0 229 192 Marital/Union status  Currently married/in union 73.7 1533 1573 Widowed 1.5 32 28 Divorced 1.7 36 31 Separated 7.0 145 162 Never married/in union 16.1 335 286 Missing 0.0 0 1 Motherhood and recent births  Never gave birth 21.2 442 375 Ever gave birth 78.8 1639 1706 Gave birth in last two years 19.4 405 567 No birth in last two years 59.3 1234 1139 Education  None 21.0 436 420 Primary 66.4 1381 1428 Secondary or higher 12.6 263 230 Missing/DK 0.1 1 3 Wealth index quintile  Poorest 19.1 397 461 Second 19.3 402 430 Middle 19.4 405 420 Fourth 19.8 413 375 Richest 22.3 464 395 Wealth index  Poorest 60 percent 57.9 1204 1311 Richest 40 percent 42.1 877 770 Approximately 74 percent of interviewed eligible women live in urban areas. Almost 74 percent of all women in this sample are married, while 16 percent have never been married. Distribution by motherhood is similar to marital status: 79 percent of women have given birth. The majority of interviewed women have primary education (66 percent), while the proportion of women with no education is 21 percent. Overall, 13 percent of women age 15-49 have secondary or higher education. As far as wealth index quintiles are concerned, women are almost equally distributed across the first four quintiles (about 19 percent in each quintile), while there is only a slightly higher percentage of women who live in households within the richest quintile (about 22 percent of women). 24 Serbia Multiple Indicator Cluster Survey 2014 and Serbia Roma Settlements Multiple Indicator Cluster Survey 201424 Serbia Multiple Indicator Cluster Survey 2014 and Serbia Roma Settlements Multiple Indicator Cluster Survey 2014 Background characteristics of children under 5 are presented in Table HH.5R. These include the distribution of children by several attributes: sex, area, age in months, mother’s (or caretaker’s) education and wealth index. The proportion of male and female children in the under-5 sample is almost the same, 52 and 48 percent respectively. The majority of children under 5 in Roma settlements live in urban areas (about 75 percent). Age distribution shows that about 18 percent of children are under one year of age, while the remaining one-year categories range between 19 and 21 percent. The majority of children under 5 (68 percent) have a mother with primary education. As for the wealth index quintiles, a higher percentage of children under 5 from Roma settlements live in households within the poorest quintile (29 percent) than in the richest quintile (14 percent). Table HH.5R: Under-5’s background characteristics Percent and frequency distribution of children under five years of age by selected characteristics, Serbia Roma Settlements, 2014   Weighted percent Number of under-5 children Weighted Unweighted Total 100.0 1515 1515 Sex  Male 51.9 787 796 Female 48.1 728 719 Area  Urban 74.9 1135 1065 Other 25.1 380 450 Age  0-5 months 9.6 146 117 6-11 months 8.6 130 147 12-23 months 21.0 318 323 24-35 months 18.5 281 271 36-47 months 21.4 324 328 48-59 months 20.9 316 329 Respondent to the under-5 questionnaire  Mother 96.7 1465 1464 Other primary caretaker 3.3 50 51 Mother’s educationa None 23.8 361 329 Primary 68.1 1031 1069 Secondary or higher 8.1 123 117 Wealth index quintile  Poorest 28.8 436 455 Second 20.9 317 346 Middle 19.8 300 290 Fourth 16.8 254 215 Richest 13.7 208 209 Wealth index  Poorest 60 percent 69.5 1053 1091 Richest 40 percent 30.5 462 424 a In this table and throughout the report, mother’s education refers to educational attainment of mothers as well as caretakers of children under 5, who are the respondents to the under-5 questionnaire if the mother is deceased or is living elsewhere. Monitoring the situation of children and women 25Monitoring the situation of children and women 25 Housing Characteristics, Asset Ownership, and Wealth Quintiles Tables HH.6R, HH.7R and HH.8R provide further details on household level characteristics. Table HH.6R presents characteristics of housing, disaggregated by area and distributed by whether the dwelling has electricity, the main materials of the flooring, roof, and exterior walls, as well as the number of rooms used for sleeping. The majority of households have a finished floor (96 percent) and finished roof (93 percent) without differences by the area of residence. As regards exterior walls, 96 percent of households have finished exterior walls, 97 percent in urban and 93 percent in other areas. The mean number of persons per room used for sleeping in Roma settlements is 2.97. Table HH.6R: Housing characteristics Percent distribution of households by selected housing characteristics, according to area of residence, Serbia Roma Settlements, 2014   Total Area Urban Other Electricity  Yes 89.7 90.7 87.2 No 10.3 9.3 12.8 Missing/DK 0.0 0.0 0.0 Flooring  Natural floor 2.8 2.0 4.8 Rudimentary floor 0.7 0.9 0.2 Finished floor 96.4 97.0 95.0 Other 0.0 0.1 0.0 Missing/DK 0.0 0.0 0.0 Roof  Natural roofing 0.4 0.4 0.3 Rudimentary roofing 2.0 2.2 1.6 Finished roofing 93.3 92.9 94.2 Other 4.0 4.3 3.4 Missing/DK 0.3 0.2 0.5 Exterior walls  Natural walls 0.9 0.6 1.8 Rudimentary walls 2.8 2.0 4.8 Finished walls 95.7 96.9 92.7 Other 0.4 0.4 0.4 Missing/DK 0.2 0.1 0.2 Rooms used for sleeping  1 41.7 37.7 51.0 2 38.0 39.7 34.0 3 or more 19.3 21.5 14.3 Missing/DK 1.0 1.1 0.8 Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 Number of households 1743 1225 518 Mean number of persons per room used for sleeping 2.97 3.00 2.92 26 Serbia Multiple Indicator Cluster Survey 2014 and Serbia Roma Settlements Multiple Indicator Cluster Survey 201426 Serbia Multiple Indicator Cluster Survey 2014 and Serbia Roma Settlements Multiple Indicator Cluster Survey 2014 In Table HH.7R households in Roma settlements are distributed according to ownership of assets by households and by individual household members. This also includes ownership of a dwelling. Table HH.7R: Household and personal assets Percentage of households by ownership of selected household and personal assets, and percent distribution by ownership of dwelling, according to area of residence, Serbia Roma Settlements, 2014   Total Area Urban Other Percentage of households that own a  Radio 41.0 42.9 36.7 Television 90.3 91.4 87.8 Non-mobile telephone 32.1 34.8 25.7 Refrigerator 75.2 78.3 67.8 Wardrobe 79.9 81.1 76.9 Table with chairs 76.2 74.4 80.4 Bed 95.5 95.1 96.4 Iron 56.6 60.0 48.5 Hair dryer 41.6 45.2 33.0 Water heater 57.0 63.9 40.8 Vacuum cleaner 49.2 55.1 35.4 Freezer 58.7 61.3 52.4 Electrical stove 60.2 67.2 43.4 Washing machine 57.6 63.8 42.9 Drying machine 1.4 1.3 1.7 Dishwasher 1.8 1.8 1.7 Microwave 12.8 15.0 7.5 Cable/Total TV 18.9 21.2 13.6 PC/Laptop 42.1 49.1 25.6 Internet 34.8 42.8 16.0 Air conditioner 6.3 6.9 4.9 Percentage of households that own  Agricultural land 2.6 0.8 6.8 Farm animals/Livestock 9.3 5.2 18.9 Percentage of households where at least one member owns or has a  Watch 32.5 33.6 30.1 Mobile telephone 80.9 80.7 81.3 Bicycle 35.9 35.4 37.2 Motorcycle or scooter 4.3 4.0 4.8 Animal-drawn cart 2.2 1.4 4.0 Car 22.3 22.3 22.5 Truck 2.8 2.3 4.0 Tractor 1.3 1.4 1.3 Bank account 25.7 29.6 16.5 Ownership of dwelling  Owned by a household member 81.1 80.2 83.4 Not owned 18.7 19.7 16.4 Rented 2.9 3.1 2.5 Other 15.8 16.6 13.9 Missing/DK 0.2 0.2 0.2 Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 Number of households 1743 1225 518 Monitoring the situation of children and women 27Monitoring the situation of children and women 27 96 percent of households own a bed and 90 percent own a television. Between 75 and 80 percent of households own a refrigerator, a wardrobe and a table with chairs. About 60 percent of households own an electrical stove and about 58 percent own a freezer and a washing machine, while 32 percent own a non-mobile telephone. About 42 percent of households in Roma settlements own a PC or a laptop, while one-third have access to Internet (35 percent). There are large differences by area: in other areas 26 percent of households own a PC or a laptop and 16 percent have Internet, compared with 49 and 43 percent in urban areas respectively. 3 percent of households from Roma settlements own agricultural land and 9 percent own farm animals/livestock. 81 percent of households inhabit a dwelling owned by a household member and 3 percent of households inhabit a rented dwelling. Table HH.8R shows how the household population is distributed according to household wealth quintiles, by area, sex and education of the household head. 29 percent of the household population from other areas live in the poorest households. There are differences by education of the head of household — 40 percent of the household population whose head of household is without education live in the poorest households. Table HH.8R: Wealth quintiles Percent distribution of the household population by wealth index quintiles, according to area of residence, and the sex and education level of the household head, Serbia Roma Settlements, 2014   Wealth index quintiles Total Number of household membersPoorest Second Middle Fourth Richest Total 20.0 20.1 19.9 20.0 20.0 100.0 8595 Area  Urban 16.9 17.5 21.3 22.4 21.9 100.0 6337 Other 28.7 27.3 16.0 13.4 14.6 100.0 2259 Sex of household head  Male 18.4 20.2 19.5 21.0 20.8 100.0 7249 Female 28.6 19.2 22.2 14.6 15.4 100.0 1347 Education of household head  None 40.4 22.4 18.5 15.3 3.4 100.0 1344 Primary 18.6 21.0 21.2 19.4 19.9 100.0 6070 Secondary or higher 4.2 13.0 15.1 28.4 39.3 100.0 1175 Missing/DK 0.0 0.0 0.0 60.0 40.0 100.0 7 28 Serbia Multiple Indicator Cluster Survey 2014 and Serbia Roma Settlements Multiple Indicator Cluster Survey 2014 IVIV CHILD MORTALITY CHILD MORTALITY One of the overarching goals of the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) is the reduction of infant and under-five mortality. Specifically, the MDGs call for the reduction in under-five mortality by two-thirds between 1990 and 2015. Monitoring progress towards this goal is an important but difficult objective. The infant mortality rate is the probability of dying before the first birthday, while the under-five mortality rate is the probability of dying before the fifth birthday. Even though the fertility module was included in the questionnaires for the 2014 Serbia MICS, there was a deliberate decision not to calculate mortality rates for this survey considering low mortality and fertility rates in general. The data from the module was used for calculation of fertility-related indicators. The mortality indicators were calculated only for the population of children from the Roma settlements in the 2014 Serbia Roma Settlements MICS because there are no data coming from regular statistics for this population group while other estimates indicate that values are higher than the national averages. In the 2014 Serbia Roma Settlements MICS, an indirect method, known as the Brass method29, was used. Robust estimates of the aforementioned indicators are produced by this indirect method, and are comparable with those obtained by applying direct methods. The data used by the indirect methods are: the mean number of children ever born for five-year time-since-first-birth groups of women age 15 to 49 years, and the proportion of these children who are deceased, also for five-year time-since- first-birth groups of women. The technique converts the proportions dead among children of women in each time-since- first-birth group into probabilities of dying by taking into account the approximate length of exposure of children to the risk of dying, assuming a particular model age pattern of mortality. Based on previous information on mortality in Serbia, the East model life table was selected as the most appropriate. To obtain the most recent single estimates of the two indicators, estimates based on the time since first birth group 0-4 are used. The infant mortality rate is estimated at 12.8 per thousand live births, while the probability of dying under age 5 (U5MR) is around 14.4 per thousand live births. The reference period is the first quarter of 2012. Due to the small number of unweighted cases, data by background characteristics in this chapter are not shown. 29 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. New York, UN Pop Division. United Nations, 1990b. Step-by-step Guide to the Estimation of Child Mortality. New York, UN. International Union for the Scientific Study of Population, 2013. Tools for Demographic Estimation. Paris, UNFPA. Monitoring the situation of children and women 29 V NUTRITION NUTRITION Low Birth Weight Weight at birth is a good indicator not only of a mother’s health and nutritional status but also the newborn’s chances for survival, growth, long-term health and psychosocial development. Low birth weight (defined as less than 2500 grams) carries a range of grave health risks for children. Babies who were undernourished in the womb face a greatly increased risk of dying during their early days, months and years. Those who survive may have impaired immune function and increased risk of disease; they are likely to remain undernourished, with reduced muscle strength, throughout their lives, and suffer a higher incidence of diabetes and heart disease in later life. Children born with low birth weight also risk a lower IQ and cognitive disabilities, affecting their performance in school and their job opportunities as adults. In the developing world, low birth weight stems primarily from the mother’s poor health and nutrition. Three factors have most impact: the mother’s poor nutritional status before conception, short stature (due mostly to under nutrition and infections during her childhood), and poor nutrition during pregnancy. Inadequate weight gain during pregnancy is particularly important since it accounts for a large proportion of foetal growth retardation. Moreover, diseases such as diarrhoea and malaria, which are common in many developing countries, can significantly impair foetal growth if the mother becomes infected while pregnant. In the industrialized world, cigarette smoking during pregnancy is the leading cause of low birth weight. In developed and developing countries alike, teenagers who give birth when their own bodies have yet to finish growing run a higher risk of bearing low birth weight babies. The percentage of births weighing below 2500 grams is estimated from two items in the questionnaire: the mother’s assessment of the child’s size at birth (i.e., very small, smaller than average, average, larger than average, very large) and the mother’s recall of the child’s weight or the weight as recorded on a health card if the child was weighed at birth.30 Overall, almost all (99 percent) of births in Serbia were weighed at birth and approximately 5 percent of infants are estimated to weigh less than 2500 grams (Table NU.1). The prevalence of low birth weight does not vary much by region or by urban and other area. As for mother’s education, there are 16 percent of infants with low birth weight whose mothers have primary school compared to 4 percent for infants whose mothers have secondary or higher education. 30 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 30 Serbia Multiple Indicator Cluster Survey 2014 and Serbia Roma Settlements Multiple Indicator Cluster Survey 2014 Table NU.1: Low birth weight infants Percentage of last live-born children in the last two years that are estimated to have weighed below 2500 grams at birth and percentage of live births weighed at birth, Serbia, 2014 Percent distribution of births by mother’s assessment of size at birth Total Percentage of live births: Number of last live-born children in the last two years Very small Smaller than average Average Larger than average or very large DK Below 2500 grams1 Weighed at birth2 Total 2.4 7.6 71.9 16.8 1.3 100.0 5.1 98.7 384 Mother’s age at birth  Less than 20 years (1.9) (14.6) (46.4) (37.1) (0.0) 100.0 (6.7) (100.0) 16 20-34 years 2.6 7.0 73.4 15.5 1.5 100.0 5.1 98.5 320 35-49 years 1.9 8.9 70.6 18.5 0.2 100.0 5.0 99.8 48 Birth order  1 1.5 7.7 74.5 16.2 0.1 100.0 4.4 99.9 161 2-3 3.2 7.4 70.2 17.0 2.2 100.0 5.7 97.8 207 4-5 (3.1) (4.3) (71.4) (21.2) (0.0) 100.0 (4.5) (100.0) 14 6+ (*) (*) (*) (*) (*) 100.0 (*) (*) 3 Region  Belgrade 2.0 4.5 76.2 12.1 5.1 100.0 3.9 94.9 91 Vojvodina 0.8 10.8 70.5 17.8 0.0 100.0 4.8 99.8 112 Sumadija and Western Serbia 5.4 4.7 72.8 17.1 0.0 100.0 6.5 100.0 102 Southern and Eastern Serbia 1.4 10.3 67.8 20.3 0.2 100.0 5.1 99.8 78 Area  Urban 1.2 8.2 71.9 16.6 2.1 100.0 4.4 97.9 229 Other 4.3 6.7 71.9 17.1 0.0 100.0 6.2 99.9 155 Mother’s education  None (*) (*) (*) (*) (*) 100.0 (*) (*) 4 Primary 13.7 12.5 52.0 21.7 0.0 100.0 15.6 100.0 41 Secondary 1.5 6.4 75.0 16.9 0.1 100.0 4.0 99.9 194 Higher 0.5 7.2 73.7 15.4 3.2 100.0 3.5 96.8 145 Missing/DK (*) (*) (*) (*) (*) 100.0 (*) (*) 0 Wealth index quintile  Poorest 3.5 8.9 72.9 14.7 0.0 100.0 6.4 99.6 52 Second 8.0 7.3 64.3 20.3 0.0 100.0 9.4 100.0 63 Middle 0.6 9.9 71.4 18.1 0.0 100.0 4.3 100.0 83 Fourth 0.6 9.5 73.8 15.9 0.2 100.0 4.3 99.8 84 Richest 1.5 3.6 75.0 15.3 4.6 100.0 3.1 95.4 102 Ethnicity of household head  Serbian 1.3 6.7 73.0 17.7 1.4 100.0 3.9 98.6 325 Hungarian (0.0) (12.9) (77.7) (9.5) (0.0) 100.0 (4.9) (100.0) 14 Bosnian (0.0) (0.0) (80.7) (19.3) (0.0) 100.0 (0.6) (100.0) 9 Roma (4.8) (22.1) (65.4) (7.7) (0.0) 100.0 (11.8) (98.1) 12 Other (20.6) (13.5) (50.6) (15.3) (0.0) 100.0 (21.5) (100.0) 22 Does not want to declare (*) (*) (*) (*) (*) 100.0 (*) (*) 3 Missing/DK (*) (*) (*) (*) (*) 100.0 - - 0 1 MICS indicator 2.20 — Low-birthweight infants 2 MICS indicator 2.21 — Infants weighed at birth ( ) Figures that are based on 25-49 unweighted cases  (*) Figures that are based on less than 25 unweighted cases “-” denotes 0 unweighted cases in that cell Monitoring the situation of children and women 31Monitoring the situation of children and women 31 Low Birth Weight in Roma Settlements Almost all (99 percent) of births in Roma settlements were weighed at birth and approximately 15 percent of infants are estimated to weigh less than 2500 grams (Table NU.1R). There are no notable variations by background characteristics: area, mother’s education and wealth. Table NU.1R: Low birth weight infants Percentage of last live-born children in the last two years that are estimated to have weighed below 2500 grams at birth and percentage of live births weighed at birth, Serbia Roma Settlements, 2014   Percent distribution of births by mother’s assessment of size at birth Total Percentage of live births Number of last live-born children in the last two years Very small Smaller than average Average Larger than average or very large DK Below 2500 grams1 Weighed at birth2 Total 4.5 9.6 72.6 12.9 0.4 100.0 14.7 98.6 405 Mother’s age at birth  Less than 20 years 1.1 8.5 77.7 12.8 0.0 100.0 11.7 98.7 113 20-34 years 4.3 10.1 73.0 12.0 0.6 100.0 14.7 98.9 271 35-49 years (*) (*) (*) (*) (*) 100.0 (*) (*) 20 Birth order  1 2.4 13.4 70.1 14.1 0.0 100.0 14.6 99.2 105 2-3 3.8 7.6 77.4 10.7 0.5 100.0 13.4 98.9 212 4-5 12.0 5.2 62.6 20.1 0.0 100.0 18.3 98.4 62 6+ (1.1) (21.0) (66.4) (9.7) (1.8) 100.0 (16.5) (93.9) 27 Area  Urban 4.7 9.8 72.5 12.5 0.5 100.0 14.9 99.1 306 Other 3.9 9.0 72.8 14.3 0.0 100.0 13.9 97.2 99 Mother’s education  None 2.1 11.9 77.2 8.2 0.6 100.0 13.8 97.0 80 Primary 5.1 9.3 71.5 14.1 0.0 100.0 14.9 99.3 292 Secondary or higher (5.4) (7.0) (70.3) (14.0) (3.3) 100.0 (14.3) (96.7) 32 Missing/DK (*) (*) (*) (*) (*) 100.0 (*) (*) 0 Wealth index quintile  Poorest 3.3 10.9 76.4 9.0 0.5 100.0 14.3 96.8 104 Second 3.5 6.9 76.2 12.9 0.5 100.0 12.9 98.9 96 Middle 9.1 9.3 67.0 14.7 0.0 100.0 17.7 99.1 85 Fourth 1.2 8.2 82.1 7.5 1.0 100.0 11.9 99.0 52 Richest 4.5 13.3 61.0 21.2 0.0 100.0 15.9 100.0 67 Wealth index   Poorest 60 percent 5.1 9.0 73.5 12.0 0.3 100.0 14.9 98.2 286 Richest 40 percent 3.1 11.1 70.3 15.2 0.4 100.0 14.2 99.6 119 1 MICS indicator 2.20 — Low-birthweight infants 2 MICS indicator 2.21 — Infants weighed at birth ( ) Figures that are based on 25-49 unweighted cases  (*) Figures that are based on less than 25 unweighted cases 32 Serbia Multiple Indicator Cluster Survey 2014 and Serbia Roma Settlements Multiple Indicator Cluster Survey 2014 Nutritional Status Children’s nutritional status is a reflection of their overall health. When children have access to an adequate food supply, are not exposed to repeated illness, and are well cared for, they reach their growth potential and are considered well nourished. Under nutrition is associated with more than half of all child deaths worldwide. Undernourished children are more likely to die from common childhood ailments, and for those who survive, have recurring sicknesses and faltering growth. Three- quarters of children who die from causes related to malnutrition were only mildly or moderately malnourished — showing no outward sign of their vulnerability. The Millennium Development Goal target is to reduce by half the proportion of people who suffer from hunger between 1990 and 2015. A reduction in the prevalence of malnutrition will also assist in the goal to reduce child mortality. In a well-nourished population, there is a reference distribution of height and weight for children under age five. Under- nourishment in a population can be gauged by comparing children to a reference population. The reference population used in this report is based on the WHO growth standards31. Each of the three nutritional status indicators — weight-for- age, height-for-age, and weight-for-height — can be expressed in standard deviation units (z-scores) from the median of the reference population. Weight-for-age is a measure of both acute and chronic malnutrition. Children whose weight-for-age is more than two standard deviations below the median of the reference population are considered moderately or severely underweight while those whose weight-for-age is more than three standard deviations below the median are classified as severely underweight. Height-for-age is a measure of linear growth. Children whose height-for-age is more than two standard deviations below the median of the reference population are considered short for their age and are classified as moderately or severely stunted. Those whose height-for-age is more than three standard deviations below the median are classified as severely stunted. Stunting is a reflection of chronic malnutrition as a result of failure to receive adequate nutrition over a long period and recurrent or chronic illness. Weight-for-height can be used to assess wasting and overweight status. Children whose weight-for-height is more than two standard deviations below the median of the reference population are classified as moderately or severely wasted, while those who fall more than three standard deviations below the median are classified as severely wasted. Wasting is usually the result of a recent nutritional deficiency. The indicator of wasting may exhibit significant seasonal shifts associated with changes in the availability of food or disease prevalence. Children whose weight-for-height is more than two standard deviations above the median reference population are classified as moderately or severely overweight. In MICS, weights and heights of all children under 5 years of age were measured using the anthropometric equipment recommended32 by UNICEF. Findings in this section are based on the results of these measurements. Table NU.2 shows percentages of children classified into each of the above described categories, based on the anthropometric measurements that were taken during the fieldwork. Additionally, the table includes mean z-scores for the three key anthropometric indicators. 31 http://www.who.int/childgrowth/standards/technical_report 32 See MICS Supply Procurement Instructions here: http://www.childinfo.org/mics5_planning.html Monitoring the situation of children and women 33 Table NU.2: Nutritional status of children Percentage of children under age 5 by nutritional status according to three anthropometric indices: weight for age, height for age, and weight for height, Serbia, 2014   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 SD7 Total 1.8 0.2 0.6 2353 6.0 2.3 0.4 2337 3.9 1.1 13.9 0.5 2270 Sex  Male 1.8 0.1 0.7 1239 6.8 2.4 0.5 1232 4.2 1.0 15.6 0.6 1185 Female 1.7 0.2 0.5 1114 5.1 2.1 0.3 1105 3.6 1.2 12.0 0.4 1085 Region  Belgrade 1.9 0.1 0.7 489 4.2 2.9 0.9 482 8.1 1.6 13.6 0.4 438 Vojvodina 3.6 0.3 0.4 709 8.8 2.7 0.1 706 2.7 0.4 12.2 0.5 703 Sumadija and Western Serbia 0.5 0.1 0.8 655 5.7 2.4 0.6 652 3.2 1.0 15.8 0.7 637 Southern and Eastern Serbia 0.8 0.0 0.5 499 4.2 0.8 0.3 497 2.8 1.7 14.0 0.4 492 Area  Urban 2.3 0.3 0.6 1450 6.5 2.7 0.5 1440 4.5 1.3 14.3 0.5 1388 Other 0.9 0.0 0.6 903 5.2 1.6 0.3 897 2.9 0.8 13.2 0.6 882 Age  0-5 months 4.6 0.0 -0.2 270 8.8 1.6 -0.1 270 8.3 0.3 5.2 -0.2 270 6-11 months 1.3 0.0 0.5 209 8.9 5.1 0.6 203 6.0 1.5 12.2 0.3 204 12-17 months 0.6 0.0 0.8 196 8.6 3.4 0.3 195 2.6 0.0 17.8 0.9 196 18-23 months 1.4 0.3 1.1 233 7.0 4.3 0.3 230 1.4 1.1 28.0 1.3 231 24-35 months 2.0 0.0 0.8 419 9.6 3.0 0.3 414 2.2 1.6 15.9 0.7 414 36-47 months 1.5 0.2 0.5 458 2.8 1.0 0.4 457 4.8 1.2 12.0 0.4 449 48-59 months 1.2 0.4 0.7 568 2.1 0.8 0.8 568 2.9 1.2 11.3 0.4 506 Mother’s education  None (7.2) (2.5) -(0.5) 28 (31.4) (14.2) -(1.0) 28 (5.2) (0.0) (5.8) (0.1) 28 Primary 4.3 0.2 0.3 295 13.4 2.8 -0.2 296 3.8 0.2 12.7 0.5 292 Secondary 1.4 0.2 0.7 1231 4.3 1.4 0.5 1221 3.5 1.2 14.5 0.5 1193 Higher 1.3 0.1 0.6 799 4.9 3.0 0.6 792 4.5 1.3 13.7 0.5 758 Wealth index quintile  Poorest 4.9 0.4 0.4 376 13.6 3.9 -0.1 376 1.3 0.3 16.4 0.6 373 Second 0.3 0.0 0.8 407 3.6 1.1 0.5 402 2.4 1.1 17.2 0.7 390 Middle 2.5 0.2 0.6 474 7.2 2.6 0.4 470 4.4 1.4 12.8 0.6 460 Fourth 0.8 0.1 0.5 548 3.3 1.5 0.5 544 5.0 0.4 11.7 0.3 515 Richest 1.1 0.2 0.7 548 4.1 2.5 0.7 545 5.2 2.0 12.8 0.5 533 Ethnicity of household head  Serbian 1.1 0.1 0.7 1993 4.4 2.1 0.5 1979 3.9 1.2 14.3 0.5 1918 Hungarian 0.9 0.0 0.2 78 5.7 1.8 0.0 77 5.5 0.0 10.5 0.3 77 Bosnian 1.4 0.0 1.3 61 5.3 1.7 1.1 61 3.4 3.4 27.4 0.9 59 Roma 12.2 0.8 -0.4 84 21.9 8.1 -0.8 83 2.7 0.0 6.3 0.1 81 Other 6.4 0.0 0.1 130 20.2 1.8 -0.2 130 3.2 0.0 8.3 0.3 128 Does not want to declare (*) (*) (*) 7 (*) (*) (*) 7 (*) (*) (*) (*) 7 1 MICS indicator 2.1a and MDG indicator 1.8 — Underweight prevalence (moderate and severe) 2 MICS indicator 2.1b — Underweight prevalence (severe) 3 MICS indicator 2.2a — Stunting prevalence (moderate and severe) 4 MICS indicator 2.2b — Stunting prevalence (severe) 5 MICS indicator 2.3a — Wasting prevalence (moderate and severe) 6 MICS indicator 2.3b — Wasting prevalence (severe) 7 MICS indicator 2.4 — Overweight prevalence ( ) Figures that are based on 25-49 unweighted cases  (*) Figures that are based on less than 25 unweighted cases 34 Serbia Multiple Indicator Cluster Survey 2014 and Serbia Roma Settlements Multiple Indicator Cluster Survey 2014 Children whose full birth date (month and year) were not obtained and children whose measurements are outside a plausible range are excluded from Table NU.2. Children are excluded from one or more of the anthropometric indicators when their weights and heights have not been measured, whichever applicable. For example, if a child has been weighed but his/her height has not been measured, the child is included in underweight calculations, but not in the calculations for stunting and wasting. Percentages of children by age and reasons for exclusion are shown in the data quality Tables DQ.10, DQ.11 and DQ.12 in Appendix D. Overall, 87 percent of children had both their weights and heights measured (Table DQ.12). The tables show that primarily due to difficulties in reaching and covering some children, 11 percent of children have not been included into the weight-for-age indicator calculations, 12 percent into the height-for-age calculations, and 13 percent into the weight-for-height calculations. An additional analysis indicates that there is a pattern to the coverage by wealth, with higher proportions of these children being from the richest wealth quintile. Meanwhile, the percentages of children excluded from analysis due to other reasons such as incomplete dates of birth and implausible measurements are insignificant. Nearly 2 percent of children under age five in Serbia are underweight and the percent of children classified as severely underweight is negligible (Table NU.2). 6 percent of children are stunted or too short for their age and 4 percent are wasted or too thin for their height. About 14 percent of children are overweight or too heavy for their height. The percentage of underweight children ranges from less than 1 percent in the Sumadija and Western Serbia and Southern and Eastern Serbia regions to 4 percent in the Belgrade region. Those children whose mothers have secondary or higher education are the least likely to be underweight and stunted compared to children of mothers with primary education. The prevalence of stunting is highest among the children from the poorest quintile (14 percent) compared to children from other four quintiles. The percentage of children that are overweight varies by age of children and peaks at the 18-23 month age group (Figure NU.1). Figure NU.1: Underweight, stunted, wasted and overweight children under age 5 (moderate and severe), Serbia, 2014 Underweight Stunted Wasted Overweight 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 0 12 24 36 48 60 Pe rc en t Age in months Monitoring the situation of children and women 35Monitoring the situation of children and women 35 Nutritional Status in Roma Settlements Table NU.2R shows percentages of children from Roma settlements classified into each of the previously described categories, based on the anthropometric measurements that were taken during the fieldwork. Additionally, the table includes mean z-scores for the three key anthropometric indicators. Table NU.2R: Nutritional status of children Percentage of children under age 5 by nutritional status according to three anthropometric indices: weight for age, height for age, and weight for height, Serbia Roma Settlements, 2014   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 SD7 Total 9.5 1.9 -0.6 1363 18.5 5.3 -1.0 1358 4.8 1.9 5.1 -0.1 1356 Sex  Male 10.9 2.0 -0.7 720 21.0 6.7 -1.0 717 6.2 2.6 4.6 -0.1 711 Female 7.9 1.8 -0.5 643 15.8 3.8 -0.9 640 3.3 1.2 5.6 0.0 645 Area  Urban 8.9 1.3 -0.6 1013 16.5 4.2 -0.9 1009 4.1 2.1 4.7 -0.1 1006 Other 11.1 3.5 -0.7 350 24.3 8.7 -1.1 349 7.0 1.6 6.1 -0.1 351 Age  0-5 months 26.0 7.1 -1.3 122 21.5 7.2 -0.8 121 25.3 14.2 5.4 -1.0 121 6-11 months 10.5 4.5 -0.6 119 17.2 10.0 -0.6 119 10.0 4.1 4.0 -0.1 119 12-17 months 7.2 0.4 -0.6 153 14.6 3.0 -0.7 153 4.9 0.7 0.9 -0.4 155 18-23 months 9.5 0.8 -0.5 132 25.8 11.4 -1.2 130 1.3 0.4 6.1 0.2 132 24-35 months 8.7 1.4 -0.6 259 22.4 4.6 -1.0 257 3.0 0.6 2.8 0.0 258 36-47 months 8.3 1.7 -0.7 286 20.8 4.1 -1.2 286 0.9 0.2 7.2 0.1 285 48-59 months 5.1 0.6 -0.4 293 11.0 3.1 -0.8 293 1.1 0.2 7.1 0.2 287 Mother’s education  None 9.0 1.9 -0.7 308 24.7 6.7 -1.2 306 3.9 1.1 3.5 0.0 308 Primary 10.7 2.1 -0.7 938 18.0 5.2 -1.0 935 5.7 2.4 5.6 -0.1 937 Secondary or higher 0.6 0.0 0.1 117 6.8 2.6 0.1 117 0.0 0.0 4.5 0.1 111 Wealth index quintile  Poorest 12.0 4.2 -0.8 410 27.5 7.7 -1.3 409 5.1 1.7 4.4 -0.1 409 Second 9.8 2.1 -0.6 279 17.2 6.3 -1.0 277 5.6 2.2 5.6 0.0 281 Middle 11.5 1.2 -0.8 254 15.3 2.8 -0.9 253 5.1 3.0 5.3 -0.3 254 Fourth 2.7 0.0 -0.2 232 8.8 1.5 -0.4 231 1.7 0.0 6.5 0.1 225 Richest 9.1 0.0 -0.5 189 17.2 6.9 -0.7 189 6.3 2.8 3.6 -0.1 189 Wealth index  Poorest 60 percent 11.2 2.8 -0.8 943 21.2 6.0 -1.1 938 5.3 2.2 5.0 -0.1 943 Richest 40 percent 5.6 0.0 -0.3 420 12.6 4.0 -0.6 419 3.8 1.3 5.2 0.0 413 1 MICS indicator 2.1a and MDG indicator 1.8 — Underweight prevalence (moderate and severe) 2 MICS indicator 2.1b — Underweight prevalence (severe) 3 MICS indicator 2.2a — Stunting prevalence (moderate and severe) 4 MICS indicator 2.2b — Stunting prevalence (severe) 5 MICS indicator 2.3a — Wasting prevalence (moderate and severe) 6 MICS indicator 2.3b — Wasting prevalence (severe) 7 MICS indicator 2.4 — Overweight prevalence 36 Serbia Multiple Indicator Cluster Survey 2014 and Serbia Roma Settlements Multiple Indicator Cluster Survey 201436 Serbia Multiple Indicator Cluster Survey 2014 and Serbia Roma Settlements Multiple Indicator Cluster Survey 2014 Children from Roma settlements whose full birth date (month and year) were not obtained and children whose measurements are outside a plausible range are excluded from Table NU.2R. Children are excluded from one or more of the anthropometric indicators when their weights and heights have not been measured, whichever is applicable. For example, if a child has been weighed but his/her height has not been measured, the child is included in underweight calculations, but not in the calculations for stunting and wasting. Percentages of children by age and reasons for exclusion are shown in the data quality Tables DQ.10R, DQ.11R, and DQ.12R in Appendix D. Overall, 91 percent of children in Roma settlements had both their weights and heights measured (Table DQ.12R). The tables show that primarily due to difficulties in reaching and covering some children, 9 percent of children have not been included into the calculations of the weight-for- age, height-for-age, and weight-for-height indicators. The coverage does not differ much across background characteristics. The percentages of children excluded from analysis due to other reasons such as incomplete dates of birth and implausible measurements are insignificant. Nearly 10 percent of children under age five in Roma settlements in Serbia are underweight and 2 percent are classified as severely underweight (Table NU.2R). Almost every fifth child (19 percent) is stunted or too short for their age and 5 percent are wasted or too thin for their height. About 5 percent of children are overweight or too heavy for their height. Children living in other areas are more likely to be stunted than those from urban areas. The prevalence of underweight, stunting and wasting is lower for children whose mothers have secondary or higher education compared to children whose mothers have primary or no education. The prevalence of stunting is highest among the children from the poorest quintile (28 percent). The age pattern shows that a higher percentage of children age 0-11 months are underweight and wasted in comparison to children who are older (Figure NU.1R). Figure NU.1R: Underweight, stunted, wasted and overweight children under age 5 (moderate and severe), Serbia Roma Settlements, 2014 Underweight Stunted Wasted Overweight 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 0 12 24 36 48 60 Pe rc en t Age in months Monitoring the situation of children and women 37 33 Bhuta Z. et al. (2013). Evidence-based interventions for improvement of maternal and child nutrition: what can be done and at what cost? The Lancet June 6, 2013. 34 WHO (2003). Implementing the Global Strategy for Infant and Young Child Feeding. Meeting Report Geneva, 3-5 February 2003. 35 WHO (2003). Global Strategy for Infant and Young Child Feeding. 36 PAHO (2003). Guiding principles for complementary feeding of the breastfed child. 37 WHO (2005). Guiding principles for feeding non-breastfed children 6-24 months of age 38 WHO (2008). Indicators for assessing infant and young child feeding practices. Part 1: Definitions. 39 Food groups used for assessment of this indicator are 1) Grains, roots and tubers, 2) legumes and nuts, 3) dairy products (milk, yogurt, cheese), 4) flesh foods (meat, fish, poultry and liver/organ meats), 5) eggs, 6) vitamin-A rich fruits and vegetables, and 7) other fruits and vegetables. Breastfeeding and Infant and Young Child Feeding Proper feeding of infants and young children can increase their chances of survival; it can also promote optimal growth and development, especially in the critical window from birth to 2 years of age. Breastfeeding for the first few years of life protects children from infection, provides an ideal source of nutrients, and is economical and safe. However, many mothers don’t start to breastfeed early enough, do not breastfeed exclusively for the recommended 6 months or stop breastfeeding too soon. There are often pressures to switch to infant formula, which can contribute to growth faltering and micronutrient malnutrition and can be unsafe if hygienic conditions, including safe drinking water are not readily available. Studies have shown that, in addition to continued breastfeeding, consumption of appropriate, adequate and safe solid, semi-solid and soft foods from the age of 6 months onwards leads to better health and growth outcomes, with potential to reduce stunting during the first two years of life.33 UNICEF and WHO recommend that infants be breastfed within one hour of birth, breastfed exclusively for the first six months of life and continue to be breastfed up to 2 years of age and beyond.34 Starting at 6 months, breastfeeding should be combined with safe, age-appropriate feeding of solid, semi-solid and soft foods.35 A summary of key guiding principles36, 37 for feeding 6-23 month olds is provided in the table below along with proximate measures for these guidelines collected in this survey. The guiding principles for which proximate measures and indicators exist are:  continued breastfeeding;  appropriate frequency of meals (but not energy density); and  appropriate nutrient content of food. Feeding frequency is used as proxy for energy intake, requiring children to receive a minimum number of meals/snacks (and milk feeds for non-breastfed children) for their age. Diet diversity is used to ascertain the adequacy of the nutrient content of the food (not including iron) consumed. For diet diversity, seven food groups were created, and a child’s consumption of at least four of these is considered a better quality diet. In most popula tions, consumption of at least four food groups means that the child has a high likelihood of consuming at least one animal-source food and at least one fruit or vegetable, in addition to a staple food (grain, root or tuber).38 Guiding Principle (age 6-23 months) Proximate measures Table Continue frequent, on-demand breastfeeding for two years and beyond Breastfed in the last 24 hours NU.4 Appropriate frequency and energy density of meals Breastfed children Depending on age, two or three meals/snacks provided in the last 24 hours Non-breastfed children Four meals/snacks and/or milk feeds provided in the last 24 hours NU.6 Appropriate nutrient content of food Four food groups39 eaten in the last 24 hours NU.6 Appropriate amount of food No standard indicator exists na Appropriate consistency of food No standard indicator exists na Use of vitamin-mineral supplements or fortified products for infant and mother No standard indicator exists na Practice good hygiene and proper food handling While it was not possible to develop indicators to fully capture programme guidance, one standard indicator does cover part of the principle: Not feeding with a bottle with a nipple NU.9 Practice responsive feeding, applying the principles of psycho-social care No standard indicator exists na 38 Serbia Multiple Indicator Cluster Survey 2014 and Serbia Roma Settlements Multiple Indicator Cluster Survey 2014 These three dimensions of child feeding are combined into an assessment of the children who received appropriate feeding, using the indicator of “minimum acceptable diet”. To have a minimum acceptable diet in the previous day, a child must have received:  the appropriate number of meals/snacks/milk feeds;  food items from at least 4 food groups; and  breastmilk or at least 2 milk feeds (for non-breastfed children). Table NU.3: Initial breastfeeding Percentage of last live-born children in the last two years who were ever breastfed, breastfed within one hour of birth, and within one day of birth, and percentage who received a prelacteal feed, Serbia, 2014   Percentage who wereever breastfed1 Percentage who were first breastfed: Percentage who received a prelacteal feed Number of last live-born children in the last two yearsWithin one hour of birth2 Within one day of birth Total 90.4 50.8 69.5 58.9 384 Region  Belgrade 87.5 53.7 71.2 74.4 91 Vojvodina 95.7 62.8 77.4 55.0 112 Sumadija and Western Serbia 88.9 41.6 61.7 52.8 102 Southern and Eastern Serbia 88.2 42.0 66.2 54.5 78 Area  Urban 90.1 52.0 69.0 60.7 229 Other 90.8 48.9 70.1 56.2 155 Months since last birth  0-11 months 93.5 50.9 71.1 63.8 207 12-23 months 86.8 50.6 67.6 53.1 178 Assistance at delivery  Skilled attendant 91.6 51.3 70.3 59.8 378 Husband (*) (*) (*) (*) 0 Other (*) (*) (*) (*) 1 No one/Missing (*) (*) (*) (*) 5 Place of delivery  Home (*) (*) (*) (*) 1 Health facility  Public 91.5 51.3 70.2 59.8 377 Private (*) (*) (*) (*) 0 Other/DK/Missing (*) (*) (*) (*) 5 Mother’s education  None (*) (*) (*) (*) 4 Primary 94.5 48.4 65.1 54.0 41 Secondary 87.6 52.1 69.3 51.3 194 Higher 92.6 48.6 70.2 70.9 145 Missing/DK (*) (*) (*) (*) 0 Wealth index quintile  Poorest 84.5 53.5 65.3 46.5 52 Second 93.0 48.1 71.3 53.0 63 Middle 95.1 56.6 73.9 58.1 83 Fourth 89.1 52.5 69.2 65.3 84 Richest 89.0 44.8 67.1 64.2 102 Ethnicity of household head  Serbian 89.3 49.9 69.0 60.3 325 Hungarian (97.2) (50.2) (71.7) (64.7) 14 Bosnian (86.9) (40.7) (71.1) (22.0) 9 Roma (100.0) (77.2) (87.6) (41.1) 12 Other (98.8) (50.3) (63.7) (55.7) 22 Does not want to declare (*) (*) (*) (*) 3 1 MICS indicator 2.5 — Children ever breastfed 2 MICS indicator 2.6 — Early initiation of breastfeeding The category “Traditional birth attendant” from the background characteristic “Assistance at delivery” is not shown in the table because there were no recorded cases. ( ) 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 39 Table NU.3 is based on mothers’ reports of what their last-born child, born in the last two years, was fed in the first few days of life. It indicates the proportion who were ever breastfed, those who were first breastfed within one hour and one day of birth, and those who received a prelacteal feed.40 Although a very important step in management of lactation and establishment of a physical and emotional relationship between the baby and the mother, only 51 percent of babies are breastfed for the first time within one hour of birth, while 70 percent of newborns in Serbia start breastfeeding within one day of birth. There are some differences by background characteristics. Higher percentages of children who were first breastfed within one hour and one day of birth are found in Vojvodina than in other regions (Figure NU.2). Children from the Belgrade region and whose mothers have higher education are more likely to receive prelacteal feed than other children. Figure NU.2: Initiation of breastfeeding, Serbia, 2014 The set of Infant and Young Child Feeding indicators reported in tables NU.4 through NU.8 are based on the mother’s/ caretaker’s report of consumption of food and fluids during the day or night prior to being interviewed. Data are subject to a number of limitations, some related to the respondent’s ability to provide a full report on the child’s liquid and food intake due to recall errors as well as lack of knowledge in cases where the child was fed by other individuals. In Table NU.4, breastfeeding status is presented for both Exclusively breastfed and Predominantly breastfed; referring to infants age less than 6 months who are breastfed, distinguished by the former only allowing vitamins, mineral supplements, and medicine and the latter allowing also plain water and non-milk liquids. The table also shows continued breastfeeding of children at 12-15 and 20-23 months of age. Approximately 13 percent of children age less than six months are exclusively breastfed. With 47 percent predominantly breastfed, it is evident that water-based liquids are displacing feeding of breastmilk to a large degree. By age 12-15 months, 25 percent of children are breastfed and by age 20-23 months only 9 percent are breastfed. The prevalence of exclusive breastfeeding is much higher for boys than girls (22 percent compared to 4 percent respectively). Also, there is a higher percentage of boys (30 percent) than girls (20 percent) aged 12-15 months who are still breastfed. It is evident that the percentage of children that are exclusively breastfed is much higher in households in the top two wealth quintiles (19 percent) than in households in the bottom three wealth quintiles (only 5 percent). At the same time, the percentage of children that were breastfed at 2 years of age is higher among children from the poorest households (12 percent) than from the richest households (6 percent). 40 Prelacteal feed refers to the provision of any liquid or food, other than breastmilk, to a newborn during the period when breastmilk flow is generally being established (estimated here as the first 3 days of life). 71 77 62 66 69 70 69 54 63 42 42 52 49 51 0 20 40 60 80 100 Belgrade Vojvodina Sumadija and Western Serbia Southern and Eastern Serbia Urban Other Serbia Pe rc en t Within one day Within one hour 40 Serbia Multiple Indicator Cluster Survey 2014 and Serbia Roma Settlements Multiple Indicator Cluster Survey 2014 Table NU.4: Breastfeeding Percentage of living children according to breastfeeding status at selected age groups, Serbia, 2014   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 Total 12.8 47.2 321 24.6 128 8.9 154 Sex  Male 22.2 50.1 157 29.6 64 7.4 83 Female 3.9 44.3 164 19.5 64 10.6 71 Region  Belgrade (32.3) (56.0) 67 (26.0) 33 (5.9) 39 Vojvodina (11.1) (59.8) 124 (11.9) 36 (13.1) 31 Sumadija and Western Serbia (11.2) (44.2) 46 (38.9) 39 6.7 53 Southern and Eastern Serbia (0.9) (23.3) 85 (17.0) 20 (12.1) 31 Area  Urban 18.3 50.1 213 22.8 84 7.1 98 Other 2.2 41.4 108 (27.9) 44 11.8 56 Mother’s education  None (*) (*) 5 (*) 1 (*) 1 Primary (*) (*) 22 (*) 14 (*) 14 Secondary 10.6 50.0 161 20.0 73 9.7 73 Higher 18.1 48.2 133 (29.0) 40 6.6 65 Wealth index  Poorest 60 percent 5.1 48.3 136 21.5 68 11.7 83 Richest 40 percent 18.5 46.3 185 28.0 60 5.6 71 1 MICS indicator 2.7 — Exclusive breastfeeding under 6 months 2 MICS indicator 2.8 — Predominant breastfeeding under 6 months 3 MICS indicator 2.9 — Continued breastfeeding at 1 year 4 MICS indicator 2.10 — Continued breastfeeding at 2 years The background characteristic “Ethnicity of household head” is not shown in the table due to the small number of unweighted cases per disaggregation category. As denominators for wealth index quintiles are too small, data are merged into two groups — the poorest 60 percent (bottom three wealth quintiles) and the richest 40 percent (top two wealth quintiles) ( ) Figures that are based on 25-49 unweighted cases (*) Figures that are based on less than 25 unweighted cases Figure NU.3: Infant feeding patterns by age, Serbia, 2014 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% 0-1 2-3 4-5 6-7 8-9 10-11 12-13 14-15 16-17 18-19 20-21 22-23 Age in months Exclusively breastfed Breastfed and plain water only Breastfed and non-milk liquids Breastfed and other milk/formula Breastfed and complementary foods Weaned (not breastfed) Pe rc en t Note: Figures for age in months 0-1 are based on 25-49 unweighted cases Monitoring the situation of children and women 41 Figure NU.3 shows the detailed pattern of breastfeeding by the child’s age in months. Even at the earliest ages, the majority of children are receiving liquids or foods other than breast milk, with other milk/formula being of highest prevalence, even at the early age of 0-1 months. At age 4-5 months old, the percentage of children exclusively breastfed is 13 percent. Only about 10 percent of children are receiving breast milk at the age of 2 years. Table NU.5 shows the median duration of breastfeeding by selected background characteristics. Among children under age 3, the median duration is 10.5 months for any breastfeeding, 0.5 months for exclusive breastfeeding, and 1.9 months for predominant breastfeeding. The median duration of predominant breastfeeding is longer among boys (2.5 months) than girls (0.6 months). There is also a notable difference in median duration of predominant breastfeeding between urban (2.5 months) and other areas (0.6 months). The median duration of predominant breastfeeding is the longest in the Vojvodina region (4.3 months) while the Belgrade region and Southern and Eastern Serbia have the longest median duration of any breastfeeding (11.5 and 11.2 months respectively). Table NU.5: Duration of breastfeeding Median duration of any breastfeeding, exclusive breastfeeding, and predominant breastfeeding among children age 0-35 months, Serbia, 2014   Median duration (in months) of: Number of children age 0-35 monthsAny breastfeeding1 Exclusive breastfeeding Predominant breastfeeding Median 10.5 0.5 1.9 1520 Sex  Male 10.3 0.6 2.5 770 Female 10.5 0.4 0.6 750 Region  Belgrade 11.5 0.6 1.9 347 Vojvodina 8.0 0.4 4.3 470 Sumadija and Western Serbia 9.2 0.6 2.3 397 Southern and Eastern Serbia 11.2 - 0.4 305 Area  Urban 10.0 0.6 2.5 942 Other 10.9 0.4 0.6 578 Mother’s education  None (*) - (*) 17 Primary 7.1 - 0.4 166 Secondary 8.9 0.5 2.5 777 Higher 11.1 0.5 2.3 560 Wealth index quintile  Poorest 8.5 - 3.0 237 Second 10.2 0.4 0.4 241 Middle 8.3 0.5 2.9 336 Fourth 11.7 - 0.5 325 Richest 10.8 0.6 2.6 381 Ethnicity of household head  Serbian 10.0 0.5 2.2 1284 Hungarian - - - 53 Bosnian (13.7) (0.6) (4.6) 31 Roma 19.1 - 5.0 50 Other 18.6 - 3.8 93 Does not want to declare (*) - - 9 Mean 10.0 0.9 2.9 1520 1 MICS indicator 2.11 — Duration of breastfeeding ( ) Figures that are based on 25-49 unweighted cases  (*) Figures that are based on less than 25 unweighted cases  “-” denotes 0 unweighted cases in that cell 42 Serbia Multiple Indicator Cluster Survey 2014 and Serbia Roma Settlements Multiple Indicator Cluster Survey 2014 Table NU.6: Age-appropriate breastfeeding Percentage of children age 0-23 months who were appropriately breastfed during the previous day, Serbia, 2014   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 Total 12.8 321 28.0 734 23.4 1055 Sex  Male 22.2 157 27.4 383 25.9 540 Female 3.9 164 28.7 351 20.8 515 Region  Belgrade (32.3) 67 32.9 169 32.8 235 Vojvodina (11.1) 124 21.4 209 17.6 332 Sumadija and Western Serbia (11.2) 46 28.7 226 25.7 272 Southern and Eastern Serbia (0.9) 85 31.3 131 19.3 216 Area  Urban 18.3 213 27.5 442 24.5 655 Other 2.2 108 28.9 292 21.7 400 Mother’s education  None (*) 5 (*) 7 (*) 12 Primary (*) 22 30.1 87 24.0 110 Secondary 10.6 161 24.4 372 20.2 533 Higher 18.1 133 31.2 268 26.9 401 Wealth index quintile  Poorest (*) 26 27.8 136 23.4 162 Second (*) 33 28.5 125 22.8 158 Middle (8.5) 78 24.9 153 19.4 230 Fourth (6.3) 93 22.6 147 16.2 240 Richest 31.1 91 35.3 173 33.8 264 Ethnicity of household head  Serbian 14.5 264 27.1 630 23.4 894 Hungarian (*) 11 (14.3) 27 (10.3) 37 Bosnian (*) 4 (*) 16 (*) 20 Roma (*) 8 (58.8) 23 (43.2) 31 Other (*) 35 (28.3) 30 (16.6) 64 Does not want to declare (*) 0 (*) 8 (*) 8 Missing/DK - 0 - 0 - 0 1 MICS indicator 2.7 — Exclusive breastfeeding under 6 months 2 MICS indicator 2.12 — Age-appropriate breastfeeding ( ) Figures that are based on 25-49 unweighted cases  (*) Figures that are based on less than 25 unweighted cases  “-” denotes 0 unweighted cases in that cell Monitoring the situation of children and women 43 The age-appropriateness of breastfeeding of children under age 24 months is provided in Table NU.6. Different criteria of feeding are used depending on the age of the child. For infants age 0-5 months, exclusive breastfeeding is considered as age-appropriate feeding, while children age 6-23 months are considered to be appropriately fed if they are receiving breastmilk and solid, semi-solid or soft food. As a result of feeding patterns, only 28 percent of children age 6-23 months are being appropriately fed and only 23 percent of all children age 0-23 months are being appropriately breastfed for their age. The percentage of children age 6-23 months that are being appropriately fed and the percentage of children age 0-23 months that are being appropriately breastfed is lowest in the Vojvodina region (21 percent and 18 percent respectively). There are notable differences by sex and area, related to the prevalence of adequate feeding for children age 0-5 months. The percentage of exclusive breastfeeding is much higher in urban (18 percent) than in other areas (2 percent). Overall, 97 percent of infants age 6-8 months had received solid, semi-solid, or soft foods at least once during the previous day (Table NU.7). The percentage is similar among both categories of children, those currently breastfeeding and those currently not breastfeeding. Table NU.7: Introduction of solid, semi-solid, or soft foods Percentage of infants age 6-8 months who received solid, semi-solid, or soft foods during the previous day, Serbia, 2014   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 Total 96.3 86 97.1 53 96.6 139 Sex  Male (100.0) 37 (100.0) 28 100.0 65 Female (93.4) 49 (93.9) 25 93.6 74 Area  Urban 95.5 48 (96.5) 27 95.9 75 Other (97.2) 38 (97.7) 26 97.4 64 1 MICS indicator 2.13 — Introduction of solid, semi-solid or soft foods ( ) Figures that are based on 25-49 unweighted cases Table NU.8 shows that the majority of all children age 6-23 months (94 percent) were receiving solid, semi-solid and soft foods the minimum number of times, without observed gender differences. 90 percent of children had minimal dietary diversity while 72 percent were benefiting from a diet sufficient in both diversity and frequency. For children who are not breastfed adequate feeding includes at least 2 milk feeds during the day. Only 84 percent of the non-breastfed children 6-23 months received at least 2 milk feeds during the day while this percentage drops to 56 percent among children living in the poorest households. 44 Serbia Multiple Indicator Cluster Survey 2014 and Serbia Roma Settlements Multiple Indicator Cluster Survey 2014 Table NU.8: Infant and young child feeding (IYCF) practices Percentage of children age 6-23 months who received appropriate liquids and solid, semi-solid, or soft foods the minimum number of times or more during the previous day, by breastfeeding status, Serbia, 2014   Currently breastfeeding Percent of children who received: Number of children age 6-23 months Percent of children Minimum dietary diversitya Minimum meal frequencyb Minimum acceptable diet1, c Minimum dietary diversitya Minimum meal frequencyb Total 74.2 88.0 68.9 209 96.4 97.2 Sex  Male 79.2 86.7 73.6 105 96.1 97.8 Female 69.1 89.3 64.1 104 96.7 96.7 Age  6-8 months 50.7 84.1 49.1 86 91.3 96.4 9-11 months 82.4 88.9 74.7 52 95.8 100.0 12-17 months 96.1 91.7 87.8 48 95.6 97.2 18-23 months (97.1) (92.7) (89.7) 24 98.2 96.9 Region  Belgrade 62.6 94.7 60.2 55 97.8 96.8 Vojvodina 74.2 88.5 67.8 45 96.1 96.8 Sumadija and Western Serbia 73.6 77.8 64.2 67 97.4 97.2 Southern and Eastern Serbia (90.6) (95.2) (89.3) 41 93.6 98.9 Area  Urban 69.0 89.8 63.7 123 97.4 96.6 Other 81.6 85.4 76.4 86 94.7 98.4 Mother’s education  None (*) (*) (*) 5 (*) (*) Primary (78.8) (84.6) (71.8) 28 (93.6) (93.6) Secondary 80.9 89.4 73.8 91 96.3 97.7 Higher 65.5 88.7 63.3 84 97.3 97.7 Wealth index quintile  Poorest (79.7) (83.3) (69.0) 39 94.2 96.3 Second (83.5) (86.3) (78.3) 37 99.2 93.3 Middle (76.3) (79.6) (70.0) 38 95.1 99.5 Fourth (80.9) (92.2) (77.5) 33 97.2 98.6 Richest 60.3 95.0 58.0 62 96.5 97.2 Ethnicity of household head  Serbian 73.4 89.6 70.2 173 96.4 97.4 Hungarian (*) (*) (*) 4 (*) (*) Bosnian (*) (*) (*) 7 (*) (*) Roma (*) (*) (*) 13 (*) (*) Other (*) (*) (*) 9 (*) (*) Does not want to declare (*) (*) (*) 3 (*) (*) 1 MICS indicator 2.17a — Minimum acceptable diet (breastfed) 2 MICS indicator 2.17b — Minimum acceptable diet (non-breastfed) 3 MICS indicator 2.14 — Milk feeding frequency for non-breastfed children 4 MICS indicator 2.16 — Minimum dietary diversity 5 MICS indicator 2.15 — Minimum meal frequency a Minimum dietary diversity is defined as receiving foods from at least 4 of 7 food groups: 1) Grains, roots and tubers, 2) legumes and nuts, 3) dairy products (milk, yogurt, cheese), 4) flesh foods (meat, fish, poultry and liver/ organ meats), 5) eggs, 6) vitamin-A rich fruits and vegetables, and 7) other fruits and vegetables. b Minimum meal frequency among currently breastfeeding children is defined as children who also received solid, semi-solid, or soft foods 2 times or more daily for children age 6-8 months and 3 times or more daily for children age 9-23 months. For non-breastfeeding children age 6-23 months it is defined as receiving solid, semi-solid or soft foods, or milk feeds, at least 4 times. c The minimum acceptable diet for breastfed children age 6-23 months is defined as receiving the minimum dietary diversity and the minimum meal frequency, while for non-breastfed children further requires at least 2 milk feedings and that the minimum dietary diversity is achieved without counting milk feeds. ( ) 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 45 Currently not breastfeeding All who received: Number of children age 6-23 months Percent of children who received: Number of children age 6-23 monthsMinimum acceptable diet2, c At least 2 milk feeds 3 Minimum dietary diversity4, a Minimum meal frequency5, b Minimum acceptable dietc 73.0 84.3 460 89.6 94.4 71.7 734 69.9 80.1 239 91.3 94.4 71.1 383 76.2 88.9 221 87.7 94.4 72.4 351 63.4 96.1 47 63.6 88.4 54.1 139 84.5 98.0 43 89.7 94.0 79.2 106 78.6 87.7 155 95.8 95.9 80.7 223 68.7 76.6 215 97.8 96.5 70.8 266 82.1 87.0 100 85.8 96.0 74.3 169 62.6 73.8 154 90.0 94.9 63.7 209 75.6 89.3 128 90.1 90.5 71.7 226 77.5 93.6 78 92.7 97.6 81.6 131 71.0 81.2 286 89.3 94.5 68.8 442 76.2 89.5 174 89.9 94.1 76.3 292 (*) (*) 2 (*) (*) (*) 7 (69.2) (86.7) 52 88.6 90.4 70.1 87 69.6 81.2 235 91.7 95.4 70.8 372 79.0 88.3 171 87.2 94.7 73.8 268 42.5 55.7 79 89.1 92.0 51.3 136 74.3 92.6 76 93.5 91.0 75.6 125 80.4 88.8 106 89.4 94.2 77.7 153 83.9 91.8 104 93.7 97.0 82.3 147 76.8 88.4 96 83.7 96.3 69.5 173 72.3 83.3 397 89.6 95.0 71.6 630 (*) (*) 22 (93.6) (94.5) (81.4) 27 (*) (*) 7 (*) (*) (*) 16 (*) (*) 9 (76.5) (87.0) (54.0) 23 (*) (*) 19 (94.7) (89.1) (82.6) 30 (*) (*) 5 (*) (*) (*) 8 46 Serbia Multiple Indicator Cluster Survey 2014 and Serbia Roma Settlements Multiple Indicator Cluster Survey 2014 Table NU.9 shows that bottle-feeding is prevalent in Serbia (83 percent). 79 percent of children under 6 months are fed using a bottle with a nipple. The prevalence of bottle feeding among children age 0-23 months ranges from 74 percent in the Belgrade region to 88 percent in Vojvodina. Table NU.9: Bottle feeding Percentage of children age 0-23 months who were fed with a bottle with a nipple during the previous day, Serbia, 2014   Percentage of children age 0-23 monthsfed with a bottle with a nipple1 Number of children age 0-23 months Total 83.1 1055 Sex  Male 80.4 540 Female 85.9 515 Age  0-5 months 79.0 321 6-11 months 82.7 245 12-23 months 86.0 489 Region  Belgrade 74.2 235 Vojvodina 88.2 332 Sumadija and Western Serbia 81.2 272 Southern and Eastern Serbia 87.3 216 Area  Urban 82.0 655 Other 84.9 400 Mother’s education  None (*) 12 Primary 89.2 110 Secondary 83.5 533 Higher 81.3 401 Wealth index quintile  Poorest 85.0 162 Second 83.1 158 Middle 85.1 230 Fourth 86.7 240 Richest 76.9 264 Ethnicity of household head  Serbian 82.2 894 Hungarian (96.3) 37 Bosnian (*) 20 Roma (86.0) 31 Other (88.6) 64 Does not want to declare (*) 8 1 MICS indicator 2.18 — Bottle feeding ( ) 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 47Monitoring the situation of children and women 47 Breastfeeding and Infant and Young Child Feeding in Roma Settlements Table NU.3R is based on mothers’ reports of what their last-born child, born in the last two years, was fed in the first few days of life. It indicates the proportion of children in Roma settlements who were ever breastfed, those who were first breastfed within one hour and one day of birth, and those who received a prelacteal feed.41 About two-thirds of babies are breastfed for the first time within one hour of birth, while 83 percent of newborns from Roma settlements in Serbia started breastfeeding within one day of birth. There are no notable variations by background characteristics: area, mother’s education and wealth quintile. Table NU.3R: Initial breastfeeding Percentage of last live-born children in the last two years who were ever breastfed, breastfed within one hour of birth, and within one day of birth, and percentage who received a prelacteal feed, Serbia Roma Settlements, 2014   Percentage who were ever breastfed1 Percentage who were first breastfed: Percentage who received a prelacteal feed Number of last live-born children in the last two yearsWithin one hour of birth2 Within one day of birth Total 94.4 69.1 82.9 26.7 405 Area  Urban 94.2 69.3 82.5 26.9 306 Other 95.0 68.5 84.1 25.9 99 Months since last birth  0-11 months 95.1 66.3 80.6 33.1 191 12-23 months 93.7 71.5 84.9 20.9 214 Assistance at delivery  Skilled attendant 94.9 69.5 83.3 27.0 399 Other (*) (*) (*) (*) 3 No one/Missing (*) (*) (*) (*) 2 Place of delivery Home (*) (*) (*) (*) 4 Health facility Public 95.0 69.7 83.5 27.0 397 Private (*) (*) (*) (*) 1 Other/DK/Missing (*) (*) (*) (*) 2 Mother’s education None 95.9 76.8 91.0 21.6 80 Primary 94.4 67.8 81.9 27.3 292 Secondary or higher (89.9) (62.5) (71.1) (33.2) 32 Missing/DK (*) (*) (*) (*) 0 Wealth index quintile  Poorest 93.1 70.4 81.2 21.7 104 Second 96.2 70.8 88.8 26.0 96 Middle 95.5 64.9 81.3 26.6 85 Fourth 89.2 66.2 78.1 20.7 52 Richest 96.3 72.1 82.8 40.1 67 Wealth index Poorest 60 percent 94.9 68.9 83.8 24.6 286 Richest 40 percent 93.2 69.5 80.7 31.6 119 1 MICS indicator 2.5 — Children ever breastfed 2 MICS indicator 2.6 — Early initiation of breastfeeding The categories “Husband” and “Traditional birth attendant” from the background characteristic “Assistance at delivery” are not shown in the table because there were no recorded cases. ( ) Figures that are based on 25-49 unweighted cases  (*) Figures that are based on less than 25 unweighted cases 41 A prelacteal feed refers to the provision any liquid or food, other than breastmilk, to a newborn during the period when breastmilk flow is generally being established (estimated here as the first 3 days of life). 48 Serbia Multiple Indicator Cluster Survey 2014 and Serbia Roma Settlements Multiple Indicator Cluster Survey 201448 Serbia Multiple Indicator Cluster Survey 2014 and Serbia Roma Settlements Multiple Indicator Cluster Survey 2014 About one quarter of children received a prelacteal feed with a substantial difference between the children from the poorest wealth quintile (22 percent) compared to those from the richest wealth quintile (40 percent). There are no notable differences in initiation of breastfeeding across area of residence (Figure NU.2R). Figure NU.2R: Initiation of breastfeeding, Serbia Roma Settlements, 2014 Table NU.4R: Breastfeeding Percentage of living children according to breastfeeding status at selected age groups, Serbia Roma Settlements, 2014   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 Total 13.0 60.6 146 62.0 120 33.3 114 Sex  Male 13.9 63.2 86 59.0 67 40.2 64 Female 11.6 56.8 60 (65.7) 53 24.5 50 Area  Urban 15.6 61.5 107 58.7 96 29.7 84 Other (5.8) (58.1) 39 (75.1) 24 (43.4) 30 Mother’s education  None (11.4) (42.9) 26 (*) 23 (31.1) 31 Primary 13.4 64.1 112 65.7 72 33.4 74 Secondary or higher (*) (*) 8 (*) 25 (*) 9 Wealth index quintile  Poorest 15.8 63.6 36 (66.4) 31 31.3 32 Second (*) (*) 27 (58.0) 29 (*) 22 Middle (*) (*) 43 (*) 33 (*) 17 Fourth (*) (*) 15 (*) 16 (*) 21 Richest (*) (*) 25 (*) 11 (*) 23 Wealth index  Poorest 60 percent 7.3 52.5 106 69.6 93 33.2 70 Richest 40 percent (28.1) (81.8) 40 (*) 27 (33.3) 44 1 MICS indicator 2.7 — Exclusive breastfeeding under 6 months 2 MICS indicator 2.8 — Predominant breastfeeding under 6 months 3 MICS indicator 2.9 — Continued breastfeeding at 1 year 4 MICS indicator 2.10 — Continued breastfeeding at 2 years ( ) Figures that are based on 25-49 unweighted cases  (*) Figures that are based on less than 25 unweighted cases  83 84 83 69 69 69 0 20 40 60 80 100 Urban Other Serbia Roma Settlements Pe rc en t Within one day Within one hour Monitoring the situation of children and women 49Monitoring the situation of children and women 49 In Roma settlements, the set of Infant and Young Child Feeding indicators reported in tables NU.4R through NU.8R are based on the mother’s report of consumption of food and fluids during the day or night prior to being interviewed. In Table NU.4R, breastfeeding status is presented for both Exclusively breastfed and Predominantly breastfed; referring to infants age less than 6 months who are breastfed, distinguished by the former only allowing vitamins, mineral supplements, and medicine and the latter allowing also plain water and non-milk liquids. The table also shows continued breastfeeding of children at 12-15 and 20-23 months of age. Approximately 13 percent of children under 6 months from Roma settlements are exclusively breastfed while 61 percent are predominantly breastfed. By age 12-15 months, 62 percent of children are breastfed and by age 20-23 months one-third are breastfed. The prevalence of exclusive breastfeeding and predominant breastfeeding is similar for boys and girls aged less than 6 months. For children age 20-23 months, a higher percentage of boys are still being breastfed (40 percent) than girls (25 percent). Figure NU.3R shows the detailed pattern of breastfeeding of children from Roma settlements by the child’s age in months. Even at the earliest ages, the majority of children are receiving liquids or foods other than breast milk, with plain water being the item inhibiting the exclusivity of breastfeeding beyond all others, even at the early age of 0-1 month. At age 4-5 months old, the percentage of children exclusively breastfed is 12 percent, being very similar to that of earlier age groups. About one-third of children are receiving breast milk at the age of 2 years. Figure NU.3R: Infant feeding patterns by age, Serbia Roma Settlements, 2014 Age in months Exclusively breastfed Breastfed and plain water only Breastfed and non-milk liquids Breastfed and other milk/formula Breastfed and complementary foods Weaned (not breastfed) 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% 0-1 2-3 4-5 6-7 8-9 10-11 12-13 14-15 16-17 18-19 20-21 22-23 Pe rc en t Note: Figures for age in months 0-1, 2-3, 4-5, 10-11 and 18-19 are based on 25-49 unweighted cases 50 Serbia Multiple Indicator Cluster Survey 2014 and Serbia Roma Settlements Multiple Indicator Cluster Survey 201450 Serbia Multiple Indicator Cluster Survey 2014 and Serbia Roma Settlements Multiple Indicator Cluster Survey 2014 Table NU.5R shows the median duration of breastfeeding of children in Roma settlements by selected background characteristics. Among children under age 3, the median duration is 15.7 months for any breastfeeding, 0.4 months for exclusive breastfeeding, and 3.5 months for predominant breastfeeding. The median duration of predominant breastfeeding is longer among boys (4.1 months) than girls (3 months). There is a negative correlation between the median duration of any breastfeeding of children in Roma settlements and the mother’s education level. Table NU.5R: Duration of breastfeeding Median duration of any breastfeeding, exclusive breastfeeding, and predominant breastfeeding among children age 0-35 months, Serbia Roma Settlements, 2014   Median duration (in months) of: Number of children age 0-35 monthsAny breastfeeding1 Exclusive breastfeeding Predominant breastfeeding Median 15.7 0.4 3.5 875 Sex  Male 15.6 0.4 4.1 450 Female 15.9 0.4 3.0 425 Area  Urban 15.3 0.4 3.6 651 Other 17.2 0.4 3.3 224 Mother’s education  None 18.4 0.5 2.0 188 Primary 16.2 0.4 3.7 610 Secondary or higher 10.1 - 3.9 77 Wealth index quintile  Poorest 17.3 0.7 4.2 235 Second 13.9 0.4 2.3 200 Middle 19.7 - 0.6 179 Fourth 17.3 - 4.0 136 Richest 10.7 0.5 4.0 125 Wealth index   Poorest 60 percent 16.8 0.4 2.9 614 Richest 40 percent 11.1 0.5 4.0 261 Mean 16.5 0.8 3.7 875 1 MICS indicator 2.11 — Duration of breastfeeding “-” denotes 0 unweighted cases in that cell The age-appropriateness of breastfeeding of children under age 24 months in Roma settlements is provided in Table NU.6R. Different criteria of feeding are used depending on the age of the child. For infants age 0-5 months, exclusive breastfeeding is considered as age-appropriate feeding, while children age 6-23 months are considered to be appropriately fed if they are receiving breastmilk and solid, semi-solid or soft food. As a result of feeding patterns, only 53 percent of children age 6-23 months are being appropriately fed and only 43 percent of all children age 0-23 months are being age-appropriately breastfed. Monitoring the situation of children and women 51Monitoring the situation of children and women 51 Table NU.6R: Age-appropriate breastfeeding Percentage of children age 0-23 months who were appropriately breastfed during the previous day, Serbia Roma Settlements, 2014   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 Total 13.0 146 52.7 448 42.9 594 Sex  Male 13.9 86 52.9 243 42.7 329 Female 11.6 60 52.3 205 43.2 265 Area  Urban 15.6 107 50.7 341 42.3 448 Other (5.8) 39 58.9 107 44.8 146 Mother’s education  None (11.4) 26 53.6 92 44.2 118 Primary 13.4 112 53.9 308 43.1 420 Secondary or higher (*) 8 (43.2) 49 39.0 56 Wealth index quintile  Poorest (15.8) 36 50.9 110 42.3 146 Second (*) 27 52.0 114 43.5 141 Middle (*) 43 68.7 81 44.8 124 Fourth (*) 15 56.0 72 52.5 87 Richest (*) 25 34.6 71 31.7 96 Wealth index  Poorest 60 percent 7.3 106 56.1 305 43.5 411 Richest 40 percent (28.1) 40 45.4 143 41.6 184 1 MICS indicator 2.7 — Exclusive breastfeeding under 6 months 2 MICS indicator 2.12 — Age-appropriate breastfeeding ( ) Figures that are based on 25-49 unweighted cases  (*) Figures that are based on less than 25 unweighted cases Overall, 90 percent of all infants age 6-8 months had received solid, semi-solid, or soft foods at least once during the previous day while for currently breastfeeding infants this percentage is 88 (Table NU.7R). Table NU.7R: Introduction of solid, semi-solid, or soft foods Percentage of infants age 6-8 months who received solid, semi-solid, or soft foods during the previous day, Serbia Roma Settlements, 2014   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 Total 88.0 61 (*) 18 89.6 79 Sex Male (89.1) 28 (*) 12 89.9 40 Female (87.1) 32 (*) 6 (89.3) 39 Area Urban 86.4 48 (*) 10 87.2 58 Other (*) 12 (*) 8 (96.6) 20 1 MICS indicator 2.13 — Introduction of solid, semi-solid or soft foods ( ) Figures that are based on 25-49 unweighted cases  (*) Figures that are based on less than 25 unweighted cases 52 Serbia Multiple Indicator Cluster Survey 2014 and Serbia Roma Settlements Multiple Indicator Cluster Survey 201452 Serbia Multiple Indicator Cluster Survey 2014 and Serbia Roma Settlements Multiple Indicator Cluster Survey 2014 Table NU.8R shows that slightly more than two-thirds of all children age 6-23 months were receiving solid, semi-solid and soft foods the minimum number of times (72 percent). A higher proportion of males (79 percent) achieved the minimum meal frequency compared to females (63 percent). The percentage of children receiving minimum dietary diversity increases with the child’s age. An overall assessment using the indicator of minimum acceptable diet reveals that only 31 percent of children age 6-23 months were benefiting from a diet sufficient in both diversity and frequency. For the minimum acceptable diet indicator, corresponding percentages by wealth index quintile range from 14 percent in the poorest to 53 percent in the richest wealth index quintile. Table NU.8R: Infant and young child feeding (IYCF) practices Percentage of children age 6-23 months who received appropriate liquids and solid, semi-solid, or soft foods the minimum number of times or more during the previous day, by breastfeeding status, Serbia Roma Settlements, 2014   Currently breastfeeding Currently Percent of children who received: Number of children age 6-23 months Percent of children Minimum dietary diversitya Minimum meal frequencyb Minimum acceptable diet1, c Minimum dietary diversitya Minimum meal frequencyb Total 32.5 70.3 26.8 246 74.2 73.5 Sex  Male 33.8 76.5 30.7 133 74.1 83.0 Female 31.1 63.1 22.2 113 74.3 62.8 Age 6-8 months 21.0 80.5 20.3 61 (*) (*) 9-11 months (20.7) (64.7) (17.9) 34 (*) (*) 12-17 months 36.9 62.2 28.3 99 63.4 84.5 18-23 months 45.4 77.8 37.3 52 82.2 64.7 Area Urban 29.4 67.8 23.2 182 71.5 70.8 Other 41.3 77.6 37.0 64 (84.6) (84.2) Mother’s education  None 24.6 73.7 17.2 51 (69.6) (52.6) Primary 34.3 72.1 29.0 174 72.5 77.0 Secondary or higher (*) (*) (*) 21 (*) (*) Wealth index quintile  Poorest 19.1 64.1 12.1 62 51.2 66.1 Second 31.8 66.0 29.5 61 73.7 79.9 Middle 35.4 65.1 27.2 56 (*) (*) Fourth (38.3) (80.2) (30.3) 42 (*) (*) Richest (52.3) (92.3) (50.3) 25 (89.9) (84.3) Wealth index Poorest 60 percent 28.5 65.0 22.7 179 66.4 66.5 Richest 40 percent 43.5 84.7 37.7 66 88.4 86.4 1 MICS indicator 2.17a — Minimum acceptable diet (breastfed) 2 MICS indicator 2.17b — Minimum acceptable diet (non-breastfed) 3 MICS indicator 2.14 — Milk feeding frequency for non-breastfed children 4 MICS indicator 2.16 — Minimum dietary diversity 5 MICS indicator 2.15 — Minimum meal frequency a Minimum dietary diversity is defined as receiving foods from at least 4 of 7 food groups: 1) Grains, roots and tubers, 2) legumes and nuts, 3) dairy products (milk, yogurt, cheese), 4) flesh foods (meat, fish, poultry and liver/organ meats), 5) eggs, 6) vitamin-A rich fruits and vegetables, and 7) other fruits and vegetables. b Minimum meal frequency among currently breastfeeding children is defined as children who also received solid, semi-solid, or soft foods 2 times or more daily for children age 6-8 months and 3 times or more daily for children age 9-23 months. For non-breastfeeding children age 6-23 months it is defined as receiving solid, semi-solid or soft foods, or milk feeds, at least 4 times. c The minimum acceptable diet for breastfed children age 6-23 months is defined as receiving the minimum dietary diversity and the minimum meal frequency, while for non-breastfed children further requires at least 2 milk feedings and that the minimum dietary diversity is achieved without counting milk feeds. ( ) 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 53Monitoring the situation of children and women 53 not breastfeeding All who received: Number of children age 6-23 months Percent of children who received: Number of children age 6-23 monthsMinimum acceptable diet2, c At least 2 milk feeds 3 Minimum dietary diversity4,a Minimum meal frequency5,b Minimum acceptable dietc 36.5 62.1 177 51.3 71.7 30.9 448 45.5 72.8 94 52.8 79.2 36.9 243 26.2 50.0 83 49.6 62.9 23.9 205 (*) (*) 14 32.1 82.0 25.6 79 (*) (*) 10 36.3 63.2 22.9 52 35.7 62.3 66 48.9 71.1 31.2 172 34.8 55.4 87 69.9 69.6 35.7 146 34.5 58.7 141 49.0 69.1 28.1 341 (44.3) (75.1) 37 58.8 80.0 39.6 107 (19.4) (46.0) 34 42.8 65.2 18.1 92 35.0 62.2 118 51.6 74.1 31.4 308 (*) (*) 25 (65.8) (68.2) (50.9) 49 17.9 50.3 42 33.6 64.9 14.4 110 37.8 59.4 50 51.7 72.2 33.3 114 (*) (*) 22 49.3 57.1 21.6 81 (*) (*) 24 59.7 83.7 42.2 72 (55.4) (81.8) 38 72.0 87.4 53.4 71 24.6 51.8 115 44.5 65.6 23.5 305 58.3 81.0 63 65.8 85.5 47.7 143 Among currently breastfeeding children age 6-23 months, 33 percent received the minimum dietary diversity, 70 percent received the minimum meal frequency and 27 percent received the minimum acceptable diet. Among non-breastfeeding children age 6-23 months, 74 percent received the minimum dietary diversity. The same percentage of children age 6-23 months (74 percent) received the minimum meal frequency and 37 percent received the minimum acceptable diet. Additionally, 62 percent of this group of children received at least 2 milk feeds. 54 Serbia Multiple Indicator Cluster Survey 2014 and Serbia Roma Settlements Multiple Indicator Cluster Survey 201454 Serbia Multiple Indicator Cluster Survey 2014 and Serbia Roma Settlements Multiple Indicator Cluster Survey 2014 Table NU.9R shows that bottle-feeding is very frequent among children in Roma settlements. In total, 72 percent of children age 0-23 months are fed using a bottle with a nipple and prevalence is the highest among children under 6 months (81 percent). Table NU.9R: Bottle feeding Percentage of children age 0-23 months who were fed with a bottle with a nipple during the previous day, Serbia Roma Settlements, 2014   Percentage of children age 0-23 monthsfed with a bottle with a nipple1 Number of children age 0-23 months Total 72.0 594 Sex  Male 71.9 329 Female 72.2 265 Age  0-5 months 81.4 146 6-11 months 76.0 130 12-23 months 66.1 318 Area  Urban 72.2 448 Other 71.7 146 Mother’s education  None 71.1 118 Primary 72.8 420 Secondary or higher 68.5 56 Wealth index quintile  Poorest 63.4 146 Second 68.6 141 Middle 79.5 124 Fourth 71.3 87 Richest 81.2 96 Wealth index  Poorest 60 percent 70.0 411 Richest 40 percent 76.5 184 1 MICS indicator 2.18 — Bottle feeding Monitoring the situation of children and women 55 VIVI CHILD HEALTHCHILD HEALTH Vaccinations The Millennium Development Goal (MDG) 4 is to reduce child mortality by two thirds between 1990 and 2015. Immunization plays a key part in this goal. In addition, the Global Vaccine Action Plan (GVAP) was endorsed by the 194 Member States of the World Health Assembly in May 2012 to achieve the Decade of Vaccines vision by delivering universal access to immunization. Immunization has saved the lives of millions of children in the four decades since the launch of the Expanded Programme on Immunization (EPI) in 1974. Worldwide there are still millions of children not reached by routine immunization and as a result, vaccine-preventable diseases cause more than 2 million deaths every year. According to UNICEF and WHO guidelines, a child should receive a BCG vaccination to protect against tuberculosis, three doses of DPT containing vaccine to protect against diphtheria, pertussis, and tetanus, three doses of polio vaccine, three doses of the Hepatitis B (HepB) vaccine, three doses of the Haemophilus influenzae type b (Hib) vaccine, and a first dose of measles vaccination before a child’s first birthday (N. B., due to the epidemiology of disease in a country, the first dose of measles vaccine may be recommended at 12 months or later). The vaccination schedule followed by the Serbia National Immunization Programme provides all the above mentioned vaccinations. All vaccinations should be received during the first year of life except measles at 15 months. Taking into consideration this vaccination schedule, the estimates for full immunization coverage from the Serbia MICS are based on children age 24-35 months. Information on vaccination coverage was collected for all children under three years of age. All mothers or caretakers were asked to provide vaccination cards. If the vaccination card for a child was available, interviewers copied vaccination information from the cards onto the MICS questionnaire. If no vaccination card was available for the child, the interviewer proceeded to ask the mother to recall whether or not the child had received each of the vaccinations, and for Polio, DPT, Hepatitis B and Hib, how many doses were received. Information was also obtained from vaccination records at health facilities for all children for whom parental consent to collect the data from health facilities was obtained. For 80 percent of children parents gave consent to the interviewers to collect data from a health facility while for 77 percent of the total number of children, data were available and recorded by the interviewers in health facilities. The final vaccination coverage estimates are based on information obtained from the health facilities, the vaccination card at home and the mother’s report of vaccinations received by the child. For calculation of immunization indicators, data from health facilities were used as the first and the most credible source. If data from this source were available, other sources were not taken into account for the calculation of vaccination coverage. In cases where this source was not available, data from the vaccination card kept at home was used. If the card kept at home was not available, the mother’s/caretaker’s report of vaccinations was used as the source. The percentage of children age 12-23 months and 24-35 months who have received each of the specific vaccinations by source of information (vaccination card or vaccination records at health facilities and mother’s recall) is shown in Table CH.1 and Figure CH.1. The denominators for the table are comprised of children age 12-23 months and 24-35 months so that only children who are old enough to be fully vaccinated are counted. In the first three columns in each panel of the table, the numerator includes all children who were vaccinated at any time before the survey according to the vaccination card or the vaccination records at health facilities or the mother’s report. In the last column in each panel, only those children who were vaccinated before their first birthday (measles by 24 months) are included. For children without vaccination cards/ records, the proportion of vaccinations given before the first birthday is assumed to be the same as for the children with vaccination cards/records. 98 percent of children age 12-23 months received a BCG vaccination by the age of 12 months. The coverage with the first and the second doses of all vaccines, except Hib, is above 90 percent and then declines for the third dose, but not below 85 percent. The coverage by the first dose of Hib (92 percent) is similar to Polio1 (93 percent) and DPT1 (93 percent) but the third dose is received by 80 percent of children age 12-23 months. 56 Serbia Multiple Indicator Cluster Survey 2014 and Serbia Roma Settlements Multiple Indicator Cluster Survey 2014 Table CH.1: Vaccinations in the first years of life Percentage of children age 12-23 months and 24-35 months vaccinated against vaccine preventable childhood diseases at any time before the survey and by their first birthday, Serbia, 2014 Children age 12-23 months: Children age 24-35 months: Vaccinated at any time before the survey according to: Vaccinated by 12 months of agea Vaccinated at any time before the survey according to: Vaccinated by 12 months of age (measles by 24 months)a Vaccination card or health facility records Mother’s report Either Vaccination card or health facility records Mother’s report Either Antigen  BCG1 80.3 17.6 98.0 98.0 79.8 19.2 99.0 99.0 Polio  1 86.5 6.4 92.9 92.8 86.8 4.4 91.3 90.9 2 85.2 7.1 92.3 91.3 86.5 4.4 90.9 89.4 32 83.3 5.1 88.4 86.4 86.4 4.3 90.6 85.6 DPT  1 86.6 6.4 93.1 92.9 86.7 4.4 91.1 90.5 2 85.6 7.1 92.6 91.9 86.1 4.4 90.5 89.6 33 83.9 5.1 89.0 87.4 85.9 4.3 90.2 85.9 HepBd 1 86.2 12.3 98.5 98.2 87.9 11.4 99.3 99.0 2 86.1 12.3 98.4 97.8 87.5 11.3 98.8 98.6 34 82.2 11.0 93.2 91.3 86.1 10.3 96.4 92.1 Hib  1 85.3 6.7 92.0 91.5 86.4 4.4 90.8 90.6 2 82.9 7.5 90.4 88.6 83.5 4.7 88.3 87.6 35 77.1 5.6 82.7 80.4 80.0 6.0 86.0 82.4 Measles (MMR1)6,c na na na na 82.3 12.2 94.4 93.4 Fully vaccinated7,b na na na na 76.7 3.8 80.6 70.5 No vaccinations 0.0 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.0 0.5 0.5 0.5 Number of children 489 489 489 489 465 465 465 465 1 MICS indicator 3.1 — Tuberculosis immunization coverage 2 MICS indicator 3.2 — Polio immunization coverage 3 MICS indicator 3.3 — Diphtheria, pertussis and tetanus (DPT) immunization coverage 4 MICS indicator 3.5 — Hepatitis B immunization coverage 5 MICS indicator 3.6 — Haemophilus influenzae type B (Hib) immunization coverage 6 MICS indicator 3.4; MDG indicator 4.3 — Measles immunization coverage 7 MICS indicator 3.8 — Full immunization coverage na: not applicable a MICS indicators 3.1, 3.2, 3.3, 3.5 and 3.6 refer to results of this column in the left panel; MICS indicators 3.4 and 3.8 refer to this column in the right panel b Includes: BCG, Polio3, DPT3, HepB3, Hib3 by 12 months of age and Measles (MMR1) by 24 months of age c Measles is administered through the combined measles, mumps and rubella (MMR) vaccine in Serbia d The labeling of HepB doses in the 2014 Serbia MICS as HepB1, HepB2, and HepB3 corresponds to HepB0 (at birth), HepB1 and HepB2 according to the standard MICS methodology in instances where the first dose is given at birth according to the immunization calendar in the country. The percentage of children 24-35 months old who received the first dose of measles vaccine by their second birthday is 93 percent. As a cumulative result, the percentage of children age 24-35 months who had all the recommended vaccinations by their first birthday (measles by their second birthday) is low at only 71 percent. The individual coverage figures for children age 24-35 months are generally similar to those age 12-23 months suggesting that immunization coverage has been on average stable in Serbia between 2012 and 2013. Monitoring the situation of children and women 57 Table CH.2 presents vaccination coverage estimates among children age 12-23 and 24-35 months by background characteristics. The figures indicate children receiving the vaccinations at any time up to the date of the survey, and are based on information from both the vaccination cards or health facility records and mothers’/caretakers’ reports. Vaccination cards or health facility records on vaccination have been seen by the interviewer for 87 percent of children of both age groups 12-23 and 24-35 months. Table CH.2: Vaccinations by background characteristics Percentage of children age 12-23 months currently vaccinated against vaccine preventable childhood diseases (children age 24-35 months for measles), Serbia, 2014   Percentage of children age 12-23 months who received: Vaccination card or health facility records seen Number of children age 12-23 months Percentage of children age 24-35 months who received: Vaccination card or health facility records seen Number of children age 24-35 months BCG Polio DPT HepB Hib None 1 2 3 1 2 3 1 2 3 1 2 3 Measles (MMR1) Full a None Total 98.0 92.9 92.3 88.4 93.1 92.6 89.0 98.5 98.4 93.2 92.0 90.4 82.7 0.6 86.5 489 94.4 80.6 0.5 86.6 465 Sex  Male 98.6 94.6 93.8 90.3 94.9 94.4 91.4 98.3 98.0 94.2 94.3 92.5 86.3 0.3 88.0 261 94.5 80.1 0.4 89.2 230 Female 97.3 91.0 90.6 86.3 91.0 90.6 86.3 98.8 98.8 91.9 89.3 88.0 78.6 0.9 84.7 227 94.3 81.0 0.7 84.1 235 Region  Belgrade 94.6 80.0 79.9 71.1 80.5 80.4 71.5 99.2 98.5 88.9 79.9 78.3 69.4 0.8 69.4 112 95.7 67.9 1.5 66.8 112 Vojvodina 99.6 95.9 95.9 93.8 95.9 95.9 94.5 97.0 97.0 94.1 95.9 94.5 89.5 0.4 93.6 142 94.6 91.0 0.6 96.7 138 Sumadija and Western Serbia 99.1 96.4 95.3 93.4 96.4 96.0 94.1 99.0 99.0 95.9 96.0 94.8 84.4 0.9 86.8 151 99.2 84.5 0.0 87.0 126 Southern and Eastern Serbia 97.7 98.8 97.3 93.2 98.8 97.3 93.7 99.3 99.3 92.4 94.3 91.6 85.8 0.0 96.5 84 86.0 74.6 0.0 95.5 89 Area  Urban 99.0 91.1 90.7 88.5 91.3 90.9 88.8 99.5 99.2 95.1 89.6 88.6 84.2 0.3 84.8 298 94.2 83.7 0.6 88.5 287 Other 96.3 95.8 94.8 88.3 95.8 95.3 89.3 97.0 97.0 90.1 95.8 93.3 80.4 1.1 89.2 190 94.8 75.4 0.5 83.7 177 Mother’s education  None (*) (*) (*) (*) (*) (*) (*) (*) (*) (*) (*) (*) (*) (*) (*) 5 (*) (*) (*) (*) 5 Primary 97.1 95.8 95.8 90.8 95.8 95.8 90.8 97.1 97.1 89.7 95.8 92.8 78.5 2.9 93.0 65 95.6 83.8 0.0 91.8 57 Secondary 97.5 95.0 93.8 89.9 95.2 94.4 90.7 99.6 99.6 93.0 93.4 91.9 83.9 0.2 90.5 256 95.2 81.8 0.3 86.7 244 Higher 99.4 88.7 88.7 86.1 88.7 88.7 86.1 97.7 97.7 96.4 88.2 87.6 83.8 0.0 77.4 162 93.2 77.9 1.0 84.2 159 Wealth index quintile  Poorest 94.7 97.7 95.7 91.2 98.4 97.4 92.7 98.9 98.1 92.6 98.4 92.7 83.6 1.1 93.2 98 93.3 86.2 0.0 94.6 75 Second 100.0 97.8 97.3 94.7 97.8 97.3 94.7 95.3 95.3 91.5 97.8 97.3 84.9 0.0 96.5 78 94.6 78.8 0.0 90.4 83 Middle 97.7 94.2 94.2 86.3 94.2 94.2 86.3 98.6 98.6 92.0 94.2 94.2 84.0 1.4 75.0 101 96.8 80.9 0.8 78.7 105 Fourth 99.1 96.0 95.3 91.2 96.0 95.3 92.6 99.4 99.4 94.3 94.6 93.0 85.9 0.0 92.7 106 92.5 77.4 1.0 83.8 85 Richest 98.6 80.8 80.8 80.5 80.8 80.8 80.5 99.6 99.6 94.9 77.2 77.2 75.8 0.4 77.7 106 94.3 80.2 0.7 88.1 117 a Includes: BCG, Polio3, DPT3, HepB3, Hib3 and Measles (MMR1) at any time before the survey The background characteristic “Ethnicity of household head” is not shown in the table due to the small number of unweighted cases per disaggregation category. (*) Figures that are based on less than 25 unweighted cases 58 Serbia Multiple Indicator Cluster Survey 2014 and Serbia Roma Settlements Multiple Indicator Cluster Survey 2014 Figure CH.1: Vaccinations by age 12 months (measles by 24 months), Serbia, 2014 There are no notable differences by sex, area and mother’s education for BCG, DPT, Polio, HepB and Hib. As for the MMR1 vaccine, the lowest percentage is in Southern and Eastern Serbia (86 percent) compared to Sumadija and Western Serbia (99 percent). The coverage with Polio, DPT and Hib vaccines is lower among children living in the richest households and those living in Belgrade region where coverage with the third dose of some vaccines falls below 70 percent. In the table CH.2, full immunization implies the percentage of children 24-35 months old who received all recommended vaccines at any time before the survey date. This coverage is 81 percent with some variation between urban (84 percent) and other (75 percent) areas. There are notable regional differences in the percentage of children fully immunized at any time before the survey — the lowest coverage is in Belgrade region (68 percent) and the highest in Vojvodina (91 percent). The Serbian national immunization calendar differs from the standards applied in the standard MICS methodology for calculation of the timeliness of the immunization. Namely, the national calendar recommends that all doses of recommended vaccines should be received by the age of 6 months and measles should be received by 15 months. Table CH.2A presents the data on timeliness of immunization with polio among children age 12-23 months and measles among children age 24-35 months, as per the national calendar. About one half (49 percent) of all children age 12-23 months have received the Polio 3 vaccine before 6 months of age. There are some differences in timely vaccination rates with Polio 3 by region — 41 percent in Vojvodina compared to 64 percent in Southern and Eastern Serbia. The timely immunization rates are lowest among children whose mothers have only primary education (42 percent) and those living in the poorest households (35 percent). Only 65 percent of children age 24-35 months received the measles vaccine by 15 months of age. There are notable differences by regions as only 28 percent of children age 24-35 months received this vaccine by 15 months of age in Belgrade region, versus 79 percent in Southern and Eastern Serbia. In addition, Table CH.2A also presents data on coverage with the pentavalent DPT-IPV-Hib combination vaccine for children 12-23 months old. Although the pentavalent DPT-IPV-Hib vaccine was not formally introduced into the national by-law regulating immunization at the time of the MICS survey and was not covered by the health insurance package, the practice of its administration had already been introduced in many health facilities across Serbia. Its administration is based on the request of parents who were purchasing the vaccine individually. 98 93 91 86 93 92 87 98 98 91 92 89 80 1 BCG Polio1 Polio2 Polio3 DPT1 DPT2 DPT3 HepB1 HepB2 HepB3 Hib1 Hib2 Hib3 No vaccinations Children Age 12-23 months 99 91 89 86 91 90 86 93 99 99 92 91 88 82 71 1 BCG Polio1 Polio2 Polio3 DPT1 DPT2 DPT3 Measles HepB1 HepB2 HepB3 Hib1 Hib2 Hib3 Fully vaccinated No vaccinations Children Age 24-35 months Percent Monitoring the situation of children and women 59 In general, 27 percent of children 12-23 months old were immunized with the pentavalent DPT-IPV-Hib vaccine. There are large differences by all background characteristics. Coverage is highest in urban areas and in the Belgrade region, and it increases with the level of mother’s and father’s education as well as socioeconomic status. Table CH.2A: Coverage of the pentavalent DPT-IPV-Hib combination vaccine and timeliness of polio and measles vaccines Percentage of children age 12-23 months vaccinated on time against polio, percentage of children age 12-23 months receiving the pentavalent DPT-IPV-Hib vaccine, and the percentage of children age 24-35 months vaccinated on time against measlesa, Serbia, 2014   Percentage of children age 12-23 months who received: Percentage of children age 24-35 months who received: Polio 3 before 6 months of age1 Pentavalent DPT-IPV-Hib vaccine3 Number of children age 12-23 months Measles before 15 months of age2 Number of children age 24-35 months 1 2 3 Total 48.7 27.6 27.3 26.5 489 64.8 465 Sex  Male 51.1 29.5 28.8 27.6 261 67.5 230 Female 46.0 25.5 25.7 25.3 227 62.2 235 Region  Belgrade 42.8 51.7 51.6 50.1 112 28.2 112 Vojvodina 40.6 18.5 20.9 20.0 142 78.9 138 Sumadija and Western Serbia 52.0 13.1 11.9 12.0 151 71.6 126 Southern and Eastern Serbia 64.3 37.0 33.8 32.3 84 79.3 89 Area  Urban 49.2 31.8 31.8 31.3 298 62.3 287 Other 47.9 21.0 20.3 19.0 190 68.9 177 Age  12-17 months 58.2 32.2 32.2 31.4 223 na na 18-23 months 40.7 23.8 23.3 22.5 266 na na 24-29 months na na na na na 63.9 225 30-35 months na na na na na 65.7 240 Mother’s education  None (*) (*) (*) (*) 5 (*) 5 Primary 41.6 6.5 4.7 1.4 65 65.7 57 Secondary 46.8 26.3 25.6 25.5 256 72.7 244 Higher 54.8 38.6 39.8 38.7 162 52.9 159 Father’s education  None (*) (*) (*) (*) 2 (*) 14 Primary 58.0 18.4 17.7 15.1 50 53.8 53 Secondary 47.8 21.9 21.4 21.4 285 72.1 270 Higher 50.2 42.9 44.2 42.2 128 53.2 106 Father not in household (*) (*) (*) (*) 25 (35.5) 22 Wealth index quintiles  Poorest 35.2 13.9 12.2 11.3 98 70.0 75 Second 51.7 17.3 16.8 16.1 78 68.7 83 Middle 49.6 21.0 22.6 21.4 101 66.5 105 Fourth 57.4 35.4 33.9 33.1 106 64.2 85 Richest 49.7 46.4 47.1 46.6 106 57.7 117 1 Survey-specific indicator — Timeliness of polio immunization coverage 2 Survey-specific indicator — Timeliness of measles immunization coverage 3 Survey-specific indicator — Pentavalent DPT-IPV-Hib vaccine coverage na: not applicable a Measles is administered through the combined measles, mumps and rubella (MMR) vaccine in Serbia The background characteristic “Ethnicity of household head” is not shown in the table due to the small number of unweighted cases per disaggregation category. (*) Figures that are based on less than 25 unweighted cases  60 Serbia Multiple Indicator Cluster Survey 2014 and Serbia Roma Settlements Multiple Indicator Cluster Survey 201460 Serbia Multiple Indicator Cluster Survey 2014 and Serbia Roma Settlements Multiple Indicator Cluster Survey 2014 Vaccinations in Roma Settlements Information on vaccination coverage was collected for all children under three years of age in Roma settlements. All mothers or caretakers were asked to provide vaccination cards. If the vaccination card for a child was available, interviewers copied vaccination information from the cards onto the MICS questionnaire. If no vaccination card was available for the child, the interviewer proceeded to ask the mother to recall whether or not the child had received each of the vaccinations, and for Polio, DPT, Hepatitis B and Hib, how many doses were received. Information was also obtained from vaccination records at health facilities for all children for whom parental consent to collect the data from health facilities was obtained. For 80 percent of children parents gave consent to the interviewers to collect data from a health facility while for 69 percent of the total number of children, data were available and recorded by the interviewers in health facilities. Table CH.1R: Vaccinations in the first years of life Percentage of children age 12-23 months and 24-35 months vaccinated against vaccine preventable childhood diseases at any time before the survey and by their first birthday, Serbia Roma Settlements, 2014   Children age 12-23 months: Children age 24-35 months: Vaccinated at any time before the survey according to: Vaccinated by 12 months of agea Vaccinated at any time before the survey according to: Vaccinated by 12 months of age (measles by 24 months)a Vaccination card or health facility records Mother’s report Either Vaccination card or health facility records Mother’s report Either Antigen  BCG1 68.7 25.6 94.3 94.3 60.7 29.0 89.7 89.1 Polio  1 77.3 13.8 91.2 87.1 75.2 14.2 89.4 82.7 2 69.4 11.1 80.5 73.4 67.9 13.3 81.2 62.3 32 58.7 9.4 68.1 61.0 64.0 8.6 72.5 49.2 DPT  1 80.1 10.4 90.5 86.3 75.3 12.8 88.1 81.8 2 72.9 11.3 84.1 77.5 68.8 12.3 81.1 62.9 33 61.3 9.3 70.6 64.5 64.3 9.6 73.9 49.6 HepBd 1 85.0 9.3 94.3 93.4 82.1 8.3 90.4 89.9 2 77.1 10.0 87.1 85.6 76.9 7.7 84.6 76.8 34 66.5 9.2 75.7 67.8 62.6 8.6 71.3 54.6 Hib  1 76.1 10.6 86.7 83.7 76.2 7.6 83.8 79.0 2 65.2 11.5 76.6 72.5 57.9 11.9 69.7 62.2 35 41.9 10.9 52.8 49.6 42.0 11.9 53.9 39.5 Measles (MMR1)6,c na na na na 59.2 9.6 68.8 63.3 Fully vaccinated7,b na na na na 37.0 7.1 44.1 12.7 No vaccinations 0.2 2.3 2.5 2.5 0.9 4.2 5.2 5.2 Number of children 318 318 318 318 281 281 281 281 1 MICS indicator 3.1 — Tuberculosis immunization coverage 2 MICS indicator 3.2 — Polio immunization coverage 3 MICS indicator 3.3 — Diphtheria, pertussis and tetanus (DPT) immunization coverage 4 MICS indicator 3.5 — Hepatitis B immunization coverage 5 MICS indicator 3.6 — Haemophilus influenzae type B (Hib) immunization coverage 6 MICS indicator 3.4; MDG indicator 4.3 — Measles immunization coverage 7 MICS indicator 3.8 — Full immunization coverage na: not applicable a MICS indicators 3.1, 3.2, 3.3, 3.5 and 3.6 refer to results of this column in the left panel; MICS indicators 3.4 and 3.8 refer to this column in the right panel b Includes: BCG, Polio3, DPT3, HepB3, Hib3 by 12 months of age and Measles (MMR1) by 24 months of age, according to the schedule in Serbia c Measles is administered through the combined measles, mumps and rubella (MMR) vaccine in Serbia d The labeling of HepB doses in the 2014 Serbia Roma Settlements MICS as HepB1, HepB2, and HepB3 corresponds to HepB0 (at birth), HepB1 and HepB2 according to the standard MICS methodology in instances where the first dose is given at birth according to the immunization calendar in the country. Monitoring the situation of children and women 61Monitoring the situation of children and women 61 The percentage of children age 12-23 months and 24-35 months who have received each of the specific vaccinations by source of information (vaccination card or vaccination records at health facilities and mother’s recall) is shown in Table CH.1R and Figure CH.1R. The denominators for the table are comprised of children age 12-23 months and 24-35 months so that only children who are old enough to be fully vaccinated are counted. In the first three columns in each panel of the table, the numerator includes all children who were vaccinated at any time before the survey according to the vaccination card or the vaccination records at health facilities or the mother’s report. In the last column in each panel, only those children who were vaccinated before their first birthday (measles by 24 months) are included. For children without vaccination cards/ records, the proportion of vaccinations given before the first birthday is assumed to be the same as for the children with vaccination cards/records. In Roma settlements, 94 percent of children age 12-23 months received a BCG vaccination and 93 percent received the first dose of the HepB vaccine by the age of 12 months. The BCG vaccine, as well as the first dose of HepB are administered within maternity hospitals before discharge. The coverage with all other vaccines is below 90 percent and declines for the second and the third dose. Coverage with the first dose of the Polio vaccine is 87 percent, 73 percent received the second dose and only 61 percent received the third dose. A similar pattern is observed for the DPT vaccine — 86 percent received the first dose, 78 percent the second and 65 percent of children age 12-23 months received the third dose before their first birthday. The coverage for the Hib vaccine is very low as the first dose was received by 84 percent of children age 12-23 months. Similarly as with others vaccines, the coverage declines to 73 percent for the second dose and to only 50 percent for the third dose. Coverage is lowest for the measles vaccine as only 63 percent of children 24-35 months old received it by 24 months. As a cumulative result, the percentage of children who had all the recommended vaccinations by their first birthday (measles by their second birthday) is very low at only 13 percent. The individual coverage figures for children age 24-35 months are generally lower than those age 12-23 months suggesting that immunization coverage has been on average declining for children living in Roma settlements in Serbia between 2012 and 2013. Figure CH.1R: Vaccinations by age 12 months (measles by 24 months), Serbia Roma Settlements, 2014 94 87 73 61 86 78 65 93 86 68 84 73 50 3 BCG Polio1 Polio2 Polio3 DPT1 DPT2 DPT3 HepB1 HepB2 HepB3 Hib1 Hib2 Hib3 No vaccinations Percent Children Age 12-23 months 89 83 62 49 82 63 50 63 90 77 55 79 62 40 13 5 BCG Polio1 Polio2 Polio3 DPT1 DPT2 DPT3 Measles HepB1 HepB2 HepB3 Hib1 Hib2 Hib3 Fully vaccinated No vaccinations Children Age 24-35 months 62 Serbia Multiple Indicator Cluster Survey 2014 and Serbia Roma Settlements Multiple Indicator Cluster Survey 201462 Serbia Multiple Indicator Cluster Survey 2014 and Serbia Roma Settlements Multiple Indicator Cluster Survey 2014 Table CH.2R presents vaccination coverage estimates among children 12-23 and 24-35 months in Roma settlements by background characteristics. The figures indicate children receiving the vaccinations at any time up to the date of the survey, and are based on information from both the vaccination cards or health facility records and mothers’/caretakers’ reports. Vaccination cards or health facility records have been seen by the interviewer for 78 percent of children age 12-23 months and 73 percent of children aged 24-35 months. Table CH.2R: Vaccinations by background characteristics Percentage of children age 12-23 months currently vaccinated against vaccine preventable childhood diseases (children age 24-35 months for measles), Serbia Roma Settlements, 2014   Percentage of children age 12-23 months who received: BCG Polio DPT HepB Hib None 1 2 3 1 2 3 1 2 3 1 2 3 Total 94.3 91.2 80.5 68.1 90.5 84.1 70.6 94.3 87.1 75.7 86.7 76.6 52.8 2.5 Sex  Male 95.4 95.3 83.6 71.8 94.1 88.3 75.7 97.0 89.5 80.6 90.0 81.9 60.9 0.9 Female 93.0 86.2 76.6 63.4 86.6 79.2 64.5 91.2 84.1 69.5 82.9 70.6 43.6 4.5 Area  Urban 94.2 91.8 80.3 70.0 90.9 85.9 73.9 95.2 86.7 74.7 87.4 76.9 53.3 2.9 Other 94.9 89.2 81.0 62.0 89.4 79.1 61.1 91.2 88.3 78.7 84.8 75.9 51.3 1.3 Mother’s education  None 94.4 88.8 72.7 58.7 86.1 74.8 57.7 92.1 85.8 72.6 80.9 63.0 41.6 1.3 Primary 93.4 90.1 78.8 64.6 89.9 83.5 68.4 93.9 85.2 71.5 85.7 75.9 52.5 3.2 Secondary or higher (99.0) (98.9) (96.5) (92.6) (98.9) (96.5) (92.6) (98.9) (97.7) (97.6) (97.4) (93.0) (63.8) (1.0) Wealth index quintile  Poorest 93.0 87.7 56.1 41.1 84.9 67.1 49.3 88.4 68.4 51.8 75.9 54.3 38.2 2.9 Second 94.5 89.2 82.6 62.7 88.5 82.5 62.8 95.2 90.6 76.7 87.2 76.3 48.4 3.5 Middle 97.1 89.7 88.0 78.1 89.8 88.0 78.1 94.3 91.9 76.5 85.9 80.3 43.6 2.9 Fourth (94.9) (97.4) (95.3) (92.7) (97.5) (97.4) (91.5) (97.5) (97.5) (90.8) (96.1) (95.9) (86.7) (1.5) Richest (91.9) (94.5) (89.7) (77.4) (94.5) (89.7) (77.4) (99.0) (93.3) (90.2) (91.2) (78.8) (50.2) (0.9) Wealth index   Poorest 60 percent 94.7 88.8 74.4 59.2 87.7 79.1 62.8 92.4 83.0 67.9 83.0 70.7 43.8 3.1 Richest 40 percent 93.4 96.0 92.5 84.9 96.0 93.5 84.4 98.2 95.4 90.5 93.7 87.3 68.6 1.2 a Includes: BCG, Polio3, DPT3, HepB3, Hib3 and Measles (MMR1) received by any time before the survey ( ) Figures that are based on 25-49 unweighted cases  (*) Figures that are based on less than 25 unweighted cases  In Table CH.2R, full immunization implies the percentage of children 24-35 months old who received all recommended vaccines at any time before the survey date. As per this indicator, 44 percent of children from Roma settlements are fully immunized. The percentage is lower for children whose mothers have no education (33 percent) and those from the poorest households (32 percent). The Serbian national immunization calendar differs from the standards applied in the MICS methodology for calculation of the timeliness of immunization. Namely, the national calendar recommends that all doses of recommended vaccines should be received by the age of 6 months and measles should be received by 15 months. Table CH.2A.R presents the data on timeliness of immunization with polio among children age 12-23 months and measles for children age 24-35 months, as per the national calendar. Monitoring the situation of children and women 63Monitoring the situation of children and women 63 Vaccination card or health facility records seen Number of children age 12-23 months Percentage of children age 24-35 months who received: Vaccination card or health facility records seen Number of children age 24-35 months Measles (MMR1) Fulla None 77.5 318 68.8 44.1 5.2 72.9 281 76.9 173 64.7 49.4 4.7 73.1 121 78.3 145 71.6 40.5 5.5 72.8 160 76.8 245 67.3 41.7 3.4 72.3 203 80.0 73 71.9 49.3 9.9 74.6 78 70.2 67 60.4 33.3 8.4 63.5 70 77.2 210 70.9 44.7 4.5 76.4 190 (91.4) 41 (*) (*) (*) (*) 20 72.3 83 45.4 32.4 11.2 66.6 90 74.7 79 77.6 49.0 5.1 68.6 59 81.7 63 75.5 47.9 2.6 78.8 55 (75.9) 46 (87.5) (49.2) (0.0) (81.1) 49 (87.6) 47 (64.1) (48.8) (0.0) (76.6) 28 75.7 225 63.5 41.8 7.2 70.4 203 81.8 93 80.1 49.1 0.0 79.5 77 Slightly less than half (45 percent) of all children age 12-23 months have received the Polio 3 vaccine before 6 months of age, while 53 percent of children age 24-35 months received the measles vaccine before 15 months of age. The percentage of children age 24-35 months who received the measles vaccine before 15 months of age is higher in urban (57 percent) than in other areas (41 percent). That percentage is also higher among children living in the richest 40 percent of the household population (69 percent) when compared to the poorest 60 percent of the household population (47 percent). In addition, Table CH.2A.R also presents data on the coverage with the pentavalent DPT-IPV-Hib combination vaccine for children 12-23 months old. Although the pentavalent DPT-IPV-Hib vaccine was not formally introduced into the national by-law regulating immunization at the time of the MICS survey and was not covered by the health insurance package, the practice of its administration had already been introduced in many health facilities across Serbia. Its administration is based on the request of parents who were purchasing the vaccine individually. In general, the percentage of children age 12-23 months from Roma settlements that have received the pentavalent DPT-IPV-Hib vaccine is very low (below 3 percent). It is somewhat higher for children living in 40 percent of the richest households when compared to those living in the 60 percent of the poorest households (5 percent and below 1 percent respectively). 64 Serbia Multiple Indicator Cluster Survey 2014 and Serbia Roma Settlements Multiple Indicator Cluster Survey 201464 Serbia Multiple Indicator Cluster Survey 2014 and Serbia Roma Settlements Multiple Indicator Cluster Survey 2014 Table CH.2A.R: Coverage of the pentavalent DPT-IPV-Hib combination vaccine and timeliness of polio and measles vaccines Percentage of children age 12-23 months vaccinated on time against polio, percentage of children age 12-23 months receiving the pentavalent DPT-IPV-Hib vaccine, and the percentage of children age 24-35 months vaccinated on time against measlesa, Serbia Roma Settlements, 2014   Percentage of children age 12-23 months who received: Percentage of children age 24-35 months who received: Polio 3 before 6 months of age1 Pentavalent DPT-IPV-Hib vaccine3 Number of children age 12-23 months Measles before 15 months of age2 Number of children age 24-35 months1 2 3 Total 44.6 2.8 2.4 1.7 318 52.7 281 Sex  Male 46.4 3.0 2.2 1.9 173 54.2 121 Female 42.4 2.7 2.7 1.5 145 51.5 160 Area  Urban 43.5 3.0 2.6 1.7 245 57.2 203 Other 48.3 2.5 1.7 1.7 73 40.8 78 Age  12-17 months 47.9 5.0 4.2 2.9 172 na na 18-23 months 40.7 0.3 0.3 0.3 146 na na 24-29 months na na na na na 55.3 139 30-35 months na na na na na 50.1 142 Mother’s education  None 49.6 3.0 1.6 1.6 67 49.3 70 Primary 43.3 2.5 2.3 1.2 210 52.3 190 Secondary or higher (43.3) (4.3) (4.3) (4.3) 41 (*) 20 Father’s education  None (63.2) (0.0) (0.0) (0.0) 32 (48.7) 41 Primary 36.3 2.9 2.2 1.4 207 48.3 177 Secondary or higher (68.5) (4.8) (4.8) (3.8) 52 (66.3) 32 Father not in household (40.7) (1.7) (1.7) (1.7) 27 (68.8) 31 Wealth index quintiles  Poorest 49.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 83 46.9 90 Second 36.4 1.2 0.0 0.0 79 44.8 59 Middle 45.2 2.9 2.9 1.5 63 48.2 55 Fourth (40.8) (5.0) (3.8) (3.8) 46 (71.2) 49 Richest (52.0) (8.5) (8.5) (5.9) 47 (63.9) 28 Wealth index   Poorest 60 percent 43.8 1.2 0.8 0.4 225 46.7 203 Richest 40 percent 46.5 6.8 6.2 4.9 93 68.5 77 1 Survey-specific indicator — Timeliness of polio immunization coverage 2 Survey-specific indicator — Timeliness of measles immunization coverage 3 Survey-specific indicator — Pentavalent DPT-IPV-Hib vaccine coverage na: not applicable a Measles is administered through the combined measles, mumps and rubella (MMR) vaccine in Serbia  ( ) 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 65 Health Insurance The 2014 Serbia MICS Questionnaire for children under five included a survey-specific question on ownership and presence of a health insurance card. As per the Serbian legislation all children under 18 have the right to have health insurance and protection. However, complicated administrative procedures still present obstacles for vulnerable groups of children, particularly those whose birth has not been registered. Most of the children under five years in Serbia (98 percent) have a health insurance card (Table CH.3). The percentage is lower among children age 0-11 months (92 percent). There is a difference by ethnicity of the head of household where the lowest percentage of children with a health insurance card is among Roma (81 percent). Table CH.3: Health insurance card Percentage of children under age 5 with a health insurance card, Serbia, 2014   No health insurance card Children under age 5 whose health insurance card was Percentage of children with health insurance card1 Number of children under age 5Seen Not seen Total 2.5 86.2 11.3 97.5 2720 Sex  Male 3.1 87.5 9.4 96.9 1400 Female 1.9 84.8 13.2 98.1 1320 Region  Belgrade 1.6 83.4 15.0 98.4 733 Vojvodina 4.4 80.5 15.1 95.6 753 Sumadija and Western Serbia 2.1 89.2 8.7 97.9 706 Southern and Eastern Serbia 1.8 94.1 4.0 98.2 528 Area  Urban 2.1 87.1 10.7 97.9 1722 Other 3.3 84.6 12.2 96.7 998 Age  0-11 months 7.9 83.1 9.0 92.1 566 12-23 months 1.5 86.1 12.5 98.5 489 24-35 months 1.1 88.9 9.9 98.9 465 36-47 months 1.1 84.3 14.6 98.9 545 48-59 months 0.8 88.6 10.5 99.2 655 Mother’s education  None (26.1) (57.2) (16.7) (73.9) 32 Primary 5.4 89.7 4.9 94.6 309 Secondary 1.9 86.1 12.0 98.1 1380 Higher 1.7 86.2 12.1 98.3 999 Wealth index quintiles  Poorest 6.2 82.8 11.0 93.8 411 Second 1.2 92.4 6.4 98.8 425 Middle 4.0 82.4 13.6 96.0 522 Fourth 0.6 86.8 12.6 99.4 609 Richest 1.8 86.7 11.5 98.2 752 Ethnicity of household head  Serbian 2.0 85.6 12.4 98.0 2306 Hungarian 0.0 93.2 6.8 100.0 83 Bosnian 0.9 99.1 0.0 99.1 61 Roma 18.8 69.9 11.3 81.2 91 Other 3.9 94.0 2.1 96.1 138 Does not want to declare (*) (*) (*) (*) 40 Missing/DK (*) (*) (*) (*) 1 1 Survey-specific indicator — Health insurance card ( ) Figures that are based on 25-49 unweighted cases (*) Figures that are based on less than 25 unweighted cases 66 Serbia Multiple Indicator Cluster Survey 2014 and Serbia Roma Settlements Multiple Indicator Cluster Survey 201466 Serbia Multiple Indicator Cluster Survey 2014 and Serbia Roma Settlements Multiple Indicator Cluster Survey 2014 Health Insurance in Roma Settlements Nine in ten children under five years in Roma settlements (92 percent) have a health insurance card (Table CH.3R). The percentage of children with health insurance is lower among younger children age 0-11 months (78 percent) compared to all other age groups. Differentials also exist by mother’s education level: 97 percent of children whose mothers have secondary or higher education have a health insurance card, compared to 87 percent of children whose mothers are without education. Table CH.3R: Health insurance card Percentage of children under age 5 with a health insurance card, Serbia Roma Settlements, 2014   No health insurance card Children under age 5 whose health insurance card was Percentage of children with health insurance card1 Number of children under age 5 Seen Not seen Total 7.7 72.4 19.9 92.3 1515 Sex  Male 8.4 74.0 17.6 91.6 787 Female 7.0 70.7 22.3 93.0 728 Area  Urban 8.2 71.7 20.1 91.8 1135 Other 6.4 74.6 19.0 93.6 380 Age  0-11 months 21.6 59.1 19.3 78.4 276 12-23 months 4.6 77.9 17.5 95.4 318 24-35 months 2.0 70.7 27.3 98.0 281 36-47 months 5.0 79.0 16.1 95.0 324 48-59 months 6.8 73.2 20.0 93.2 316 Mother’s education  None 13.4 65.9 20.7 86.6 361 Primary 6.3 74.8 18.9 93.7 1031 Secondary or higher 2.7 71.7 25.5 97.3 123 Wealth index quintiles  Poorest 12.5 71.0 16.5 87.5 436 Second 4.1 76.1 19.8 95.9 317 Middle 9.7 72.0 18.3 90.3 300 Fourth 1.5 71.5 27.0 98.5 254 Richest 8.0 71.4 20.5 92.0 208 Wealth index   Poorest 60 percent 9.2 72.8 18.0 90.8 1053 Richest 40 percent 4.5 71.5 24.1 95.5 462 1 Survey-specific indicator — Health insurance card Monitoring the situation of children and women 67 Care-seeking Behaviour for Acute Respiratory Infections Symptoms of ARI are collected during the 2014 Serbia MICS to capture pneumonia disease, a leading cause of death in children under five. Once diagnosed, pneumonia is treated effectively with antibiotics. Studies have shown a limitation in the survey approach of measuring pneumonia because many of the suspected cases identified through surveys are in fact, not true pneumonia.42 Table CH.4: Knowledge of the two danger signs of pneumonia Percentage of women age 15-49 years who are mothers or caretakers of children under age 5 by symptoms that would cause them to take a child under age 5 immediately to a health facility, and percentage of mothers who recognize fast or difficult breathing as signs for seeking care immediately, Serbia, 2014   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 at least one of the two danger signs of pneumonia (fast and/or difficult breathing) Number of women age 15-49 years who are mothers/ caretakers of children under age 5 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 Total 7.6 16.1 90.3 9.6 25.8 5.4 1.6 57.2 31.1 826 Region  Belgrade 8.9 28.3 83.1 17.0 44.5 6.5 0.7 43.1 52.2 226 Vojvodina 12.3 14.8 93.1 3.4 25.2 3.5 3.4 68.1 27.6 221 Sumadija and Western Serbia 4.2 10.9 92.1 10.6 17.1 8.0 1.1 52.3 23.8 215 Southern and Eastern Serbia 4.0 8.0 94.1 6.4 12.0 3.2 1.0 68.7 16.4 163 Area  Urban 7.2 18.4 89.6 11.7 30.4 7.1 1.6 54.2 36.4 524 Other 8.3 12.1 91.4 6.1 17.8 2.5 1.5 62.5 21.9 302 Education  None (*) (*) (*) (*) (*) (*) (*) (*) (*) 6 Primary 3.5 7.4 90.3 5.6 17.4 7.1 0.9 66.1 20.4 83 Secondary 7.0 14.8 90.4 8.6 22.5 4.1 1.6 57.6 27.4 427 Higher 9.5 20.5 90.2 12.0 32.8 6.9 1.7 53.9 39.6 309 Missing/DK (*) (*) (*) (*) (*) (*) (*) (*) (*) 0 Wealth index quintile  Poorest 6.6 8.9 92.6 4.6 12.7 2.7 1.3 68.0 14.9 104 Second 6.5 9.9 91.2 9.7 16.4 2.5 1.0 60.5 22.8 131 Middle 4.1 12.6 94.9 7.9 26.4 4.5 1.5 55.3 30.6 163 Fourth 9.2 19.1 88.6 6.0 27.5 6.5 1.3 60.1 30.7 187 Richest 9.8 22.8 86.9 15.7 34.8 8.1 2.3 49.8 43.5 240 Ethnicity of household head  Serbian 6.0 15.8 89.7 10.7 27.4 6.0 1.5 56.4 33.3 706 Hungarian 10.5 12.8 94.0 2.6 21.9 1.7 2.1 75.1 24.5 26 Bosnian (0.0) (26.3) (97.0) (3.2) (19.7) (0.0) (3.0) (38.9) (21.6) 17 Roma 1.5 12.3 88.3 8.1 12.7 1.5 1.5 63.8 16.5 21 Other 18.3 3.8 92.4 2.0 17.0 4.7 3.5 76.1 18.3 40 Does not want to declare (*) (*) (*) (*) (*) (*) (*) (*) (*) 14 Missing/DK (*) (*) (*) (*) (*) (*) (*) (*) (*) 0 ( ) Figures that are based on 25-49 unweighted cases (*) Figures that are based on less than 25 unweighted cases 42 Campbell H, el Arifeen S, Hazir T, O’Kelly J, Bryce J, et al. (2013) Measuring Coverage in MNCH: Challenges in Monitoring the Proportion of Young Children with Pneumonia Who Receive Antibiotic Treatment. PLoS Med 10(5): e1001421. doi:10.1371/journal.pmed.1001421 68 Serbia Multiple Indicator Cluster Survey 2014 and Serbia Roma Settlements Multiple Indicator Cluster Survey 2014 Mothers’ knowledge of danger signs is an important determinant of care-seeking behaviour. In the MICS, mothers or caretakers were asked to report symptoms that would cause them to take a child under-five for care immediately at a health facility. Issues related to knowledge of danger signs of pneumonia are presented in Table CH.4. Overall, 31 percent of women know at least one of the two danger signs of pneumonia — fast and/or difficult breathing. The most commonly identified symptom for taking a child to a health facility is if the child develops a fever (90 percent). About 10 percent of mothers identified fast breathing and 26 percent difficult breathing as symptoms for taking children immediately to a health care provider. There are notable differences by regions, areas and socioeconomic status. The highest percentage of mothers who know at least one of the two danger signs of pneumonia is in the Belgrade region, urban areas, among women with higher education and those living in the richest households. On the other hand, the women living in Southern and Eastern Serbia, other areas of residence and among the poorest household population have the least knowledge about at least one of the two danger signs of pneumonia. Monitoring the situation of children and women 69Monitoring the situation of children and women 69 Care-seeking Behaviour for Acute Respiratory Infections in Roma Settlements Issues related to knowledge of danger signs of pneumonia in Roma settlements are presented in Table CH.4R. Overall, only 18 percent of women living in Roma settlements know at least one of the two danger signs of pneumonia — fast and/or difficult breathing. The most commonly identified symptom for taking a child to a health facility is if the child develops a fever (90 percent). About 5 percent of mothers identified fast breathing and 14 percent identified difficult breathing as symptoms for taking children immediately to a health care provider. There is no large difference by background characteristics in the percentage of women who know at least one of the two danger signs of pneumonia. Table CH.4R: Knowledge of the two danger signs of pneumonia Percentage of women age 15-49 years who are mothers or caretakers of children under age 5 by symptoms that would cause them to take a child under age 5 immediately to a health facility, and percentage of mothers who recognize fast or difficult breathing as signs for seeking care immediately, Roma settlements, 2014   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 at least one of the two danger signs of pneumonia (fast and/or difficult breathing) Number of women age 15-49 years who are mothers/ caretakers of children under age 5 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 Total 4.3 9.5 90.1 4.6 14.0 0.4 2.1 52.4 17.5 718 Area  Urban 4.7 9.5 89.9 4.4 13.6 0.3 1.9 53.4 17.2 540 Other 2.9 9.5 90.7 5.1 15.2 0.6 3.0 49.3 18.5 178 Education  None 2.2 8.7 90.1 6.6 14.9 0.0 1.2 51.7 19.6 164 Primary 5.3 9.6 89.8 4.3 13.8 0.5 2.5 53.1 17.2 494 Secondary or higher 1.6 11.2 92.4 1.6 13.7 0.0 2.1 48.6 15.3 60 Missing/DK (*) (*) (*) (*) (*) (*) (*) (*) (*) 0 Wealth index quintile  Poorest 2.9 9.7 92.9 4.0 13.9 0.4 2.9 48.7 16.8 183 Second 5.7 13.5 87.5 5.5 10.1 0.6 4.3 56.4 14.2 150 Middle 2.7 9.8 85.6 4.9 19.5 0.0 0.4 50.3 22.2 154 Fourth 3.1 8.5 90.1 5.5 12.7 0.9 1.2 48.6 18.2 126 Richest 8.2 4.3 95.3 2.7 13.5 0.0 1.6 60.4 15.9 106 Wealth index  Poorest 60 percent 3.7 10.9 88.9 4.7 14.5 0.3 2.5 51.6 17.7 487 Richest 40 percent 5.4 6.6 92.5 4.2 13.0 0.5 1.3 54.0 17.1 231 (*) Figures that are based on less than 25 unweighted cases  70 Serbia Multiple Indicator Cluster Survey 2014 and Serbia Roma Settlements Multiple Indicator Cluster Survey 2014 Solid Fuel Use More than 3 billion people around the world rely on solid fuels for their basic energy needs, including cooking and heating. Solid fuels include biomass fuels, such as wood, charcoal, crops or other agricultural waste, dung, shrubs and straw, and coal. Cooking and heating with solid fuels leads to high levels of indoor smoke that contains a complex mix of health- damaging pollutants. The main problem with the use of solid fuels is their incomplete combustion, which produces toxic elements such as carbon monoxide, polyaromatic hydrocarbons, and sulphur dioxide (SO2), among others. Use of solid fuels increases the risks of incurring acute respiratory illness, pneumonia, chronic obstructive lung disease, cancer, and possibly tuberculosis, asthma, or cataracts, and may contribute to low birth weight of babies born to pregnant women exposed to smoke. The primary indicator for monitoring use of solid fuels is the proportion of the population using solid fuels as the primary source of domestic energy for cooking, shown in Table CH.5. Table CH.5: Solid fuel use Percent distribution of household members according to type of cooking fuel mainly used by the household, and percentage of household members living in households using solid fuels for cooking, Serbia, 2014   Percentage of household Electricity Liquefied Petroleum Gas (LPG) Natural Gas Solid fuels Coal/Lignite Charcoal Wood Total 48.6 11.4 5.7 0.2 0.3 33.6 Region  Belgrade 75.6 12.9 1.6 0.3 0.6 9.0 Vojvodina 48.1 17.3 18.7 0.2 0.0 15.0 Sumadija and Western Serbia 37.1 7.7 1.1 0.3 0.4 53.3 Southern and Eastern Serbia 36.3 7.4 0.1 0.0 0.3 55.6 Area  Urban 64.6 11.7 6.0 0.1 0.2 17.1 Other 25.4 10.9 5.2 0.4 0.4 57.5 Education of household head  None 14.3 13.5 1.0 0.0 0.0 67.0 Primary 27.7 8.1 3.6 0.4 1.0 58.9 Secondary 52.4 11.5 6.6 0.2 0.1 29.1 Higher 67.3 14.3 6.2 0.1 0.0 11.9 Missing/DK (8.1) (65.3) (2.1) (0.0) (0.0) (24.5) Wealth index quintiles  Poorest 17.1 4.4 2.7 0.5 0.7 73.3 Second 36.1 8.6 5.0 0.2 0.3 49.6 Middle 50.2 12.2 5.2 0.3 0.0 32.1 Fourth 62.5 18.5 8.4 0.0 0.5 10.0 Richest 76.9 13.0 7.0 0.1 0.0 3.1 Ethnicity of household head  Serbian 49.7 10.9 4.9 0.2 0.4 33.7 Hungarian 48.6 21.2 21.5 0.0 0.0 7.3 Bosnian 17.3 0.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 81.8 Roma 27.3 3.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 66.6 Other 38.8 19.4 12.1 0.0 0.0 29.2 Does not want to declare 78.1 11.7 5.1 0.0 0.0 5.1 Missing/DK (*) (*) (*) (*) (*) (*) 1 MICS indicator 3.15 — Use of solid fuels for cooking ( ) 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 71 members in households mainly using: Number of household membersOther fuel No food cooked in the household Missing Total Solid fuels for cooking1Straw/Shrubs/ Grass Agricultural crop residue 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.0 100.0 34.2 19212 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 9.9 4345 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.6 0.0 100.0 15.2 5113 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 54.1 5284 0.3 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 100.0 56.2 4470 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.0 100.0 17.5 11345 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 100.0 58.5 7867 3.2 0.0 0.0 1.1 0.0 100.0 70.2 352 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.3 0.0 100.0 60.4 4906 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 100.0 29.4 9740 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 100.0 12.0 4185 (0.0) (0.0) (0.0) (0.0) (0.0) 100.0 (24.5) 30 0.3 0.1 0.1 0.7 0.0 100.0 75.0 3843 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.0 100.0 50.1 3840 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 32.4 3841 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 10.6 3854 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 3.2 3834 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 100.0 34.3 16761 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.4 0.0 100.0 7.3 746 0.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 82.3 290 2.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 69.2 426 0.0 0.3 0.0 0.2 0.0 100.0 29.5 779 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 5.1 201 (*) (*) (*) (*) (*) 100.0 (*) 8 Overall, around one third (34 percent) of all household members in Serbia use solid fuels for cooking, consisting mainly of wood (34 percent). Use of solid fuels is very low in urban areas (18 percent), but very high in other areas, where they are used by more than a half of household members (59 percent). Differentials with respect to household wealth and the educational level of the head of household are also very important. The findings show that use of solid fuels ranges from 10 percent in the Belgrade region to 56 percent in Southern and Eastern Serbia. Use of solid fuels for cooking is much more prevalent among the populations in poorest households (75 percent) than among the richest households (only 3 percent). 72 Serbia Multiple Indicator Cluster Survey 2014 and Serbia Roma Settlements Multiple Indicator Cluster Survey 2014 Solid fuel use by place of cooking is depicted in Table CH.6. The presence and extent of indoor pollution are dependent on cooking practices, places used for cooking, as well as types of fuel used. According to the 2014 Serbia MICS, 31 percent of household members in households using solid fuels for cooking, cook in a separate room used as a kitchen. Cooking in the separate room used as a kitchen is most frequent in the Belgrade region (63 percent) and is least frequent in Sumadija and Western Serbia (23 percent). Table CH.6: Solid fuel use by place of cooking Percent distribution of household members in households using solid fuels by place of cooking, Serbia, 2014   Place of cooking: Number of household members in households using solid fuels for cooking In the house In a separate building Outdoors Missing TotalIn a separate room used as kitchen Elsewhere in the house Total 30.9 62.8 6.0 0.0 0.3 100.0 6580 Region  Belgrade 63.0 28.8 4.1 0.0 4.0 100.0 430 Vojvodina 44.6 49.1 5.9 0.0 0.4 100.0 779 Sumadija and Western Serbia 23.1 70.2 6.7 0.0 0.1 100.0 2857 Southern and Eastern Serbia 30.1 64.4 5.6 0.0 0.0 100.0 2514 Area  Urban 33.1 64.8 2.1 0.0 0.0 100.0 1981 Other 29.9 61.9 7.7 0.0 0.5 100.0 4599 Education of household head  None 23.9 74.1 2.1 0.0 0.0 100.0 247 Primary 31.6 62.0 6.1 0.0 0.3 100.0 2961 Secondary 30.6 63.2 5.7 0.0 0.4 100.0 2861 Higher 32.9 58.4 8.7 0.0 0.0 100.0 504 Missing/DK (*) (*) (*) (*) (*) 100.0 7 Wealth index quintiles  Poorest 28.2 66.9 4.6 0.0 0.3 100.0 2882 Second 28.6 65.2 5.9 0.0 0.3 100.0 1924 Middle 34.2 58.3 7.5 0.0 0.0 100.0 1244 Fourth 49.0 40.7 8.5 0.0 1.7 100.0 408 Richest 38.1 45.0 16.9 0.0 0.0 100.0 121 Ethnicity of household head  Serbian 32.4 60.8 6.4 0.0 0.4 100.0 5751 Hungarian (74.7) (25.3) (0.0) (0.0) (0.0) 100.0 55 Bosnian 0.7 99.0 0.3 0.0 0.0 100.0 239 Roma 20.5 78.5 1.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 295 Other 28.1 63.1 8.8 0.0 0.0 100.0 230 Does not want to declare (*) (*) (*) (*) (*) 100.0 10 The column “Other place” is not shown in the table because there were no recorded cases ( ) 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 73Monitoring the situation of children and women 73 Solid Fuel Use in Roma Settlements Overall, 82 percent of the household population in Roma settlements use solid fuels for cooking, consisting mainly of wood (81 percent). Use of solid fuels is lower in urban areas (79 percent) than in other areas (91 percent). Differentials with respect to household wealth and the educational level of the head of household are also noticeable and there is a negative correlation between solid fuel use and household wealth. Solid fuels use declines by education of the head of household, from 91 percent in households whose head of household has no education to 66 percent in households whose head of household has secondary or higher education. Table CH.5R: Solid fuel use Percent distribution of household members according to type of cooking fuel mainly used by the household, and percentage of household members living in households using solid fuels for cooking, Serbia Roma Settlements, 2014   Percentage of household members in households mainly using: Number of household membersElectricity Liquefied Petroleum Gas (LPG) Solid fuels Other fuel No food cooked in the household Total Solid fuels for cooking1 Coal/ Lignite Charcoal Wood Straw/ Shrubs/ Grass Total 17.2 0.5 0.2 0.6 80.8 0.2 0.1 0.4 100.0 81.9 8595 Area  Urban 20.5 0.4 0.3 0.3 77.6 0.3 0.1 0.5 100.0 78.5 6337 Other 7.7 0.7 0.0 1.6 89.7 0.0 0.1 0.2 100.0 91.4 2259 Education of household head  None 7.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 90.6 0.0 0.0 1.8 100.0 90.6 1344 Primary 16.3 0.5 0.3 0.8 81.6 0.2 0.1 0.2 100.0 82.9 6070 Secondary or higher 32.5 0.9 0.0 0.3 65.3 0.8 0.2 0.2 100.0 66.3 1175 Missing/DK (*) (*) (*) (*) (*) (*) (*) (*) 100.0 (*) 7 Wealth index quintiles  Poorest 2.5 0.0 0.0 2.6 92.6 0.0 0.4 2.0 100.0 95.1 1720 Second 4.3 0.0 0.1 0.2 95.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 95.7 1725 Middle 10.9 0.0 0.5 0.4 87.8 0.4 0.0 0.0 100.0 89.1 1711 Fourth 16.1 0.9 0.5 0.0 81.8 0.8 0.0 0.0 100.0 83.0 1720 Richest 52.0 1.4 0.0 0.0 46.4 0.0 0.0 0.2 100.0 46.4 1718 Wealth index   Poorest 60 percent 5.9 0.0 0.2 1.0 91.9 0.1 0.1 0.7 100.0 93.3 5157 Richest 40 percent 34.0 1.1 0.2 0.0 64.1 0.4 0.0 0.1 100.0 64.7 3438 1 MICS indicator 3.15 — Use of solid fuels for cooking (*) Figures that are based on less than 25 unweighted cases Solid fuel use by place of cooking is depicted in Table CH.6R. The presence and extent of indoor pollution are dependent on cooking practices, places used for cooking, as well as types of fuel used. According to the 2014 Serbia Roma Settlements MICS, 16 percent of household members from Roma settlements in households using solid fuels for cooking, cook in a separate room used as a kitchen. 74 Serbia Multiple Indicator Cluster Survey 2014 and Serbia Roma Settlements Multiple Indicator Cluster Survey 201474 Serbia Multiple Indicator Cluster Survey 2014 and Serbia Roma Settlements Multiple Indicator Cluster Survey 2014 Table CH.6R: Solid fuel use by place of cooking Percent distribution of household members in households using solid fuels by place of cooking, Serbia Roma Settlements, 2014   Place of cooking: Number of household members in households using solid fuels for cooking In the house In a separate building Outdoors Other place Missing Total In a separate room used as kitchen Elsewhere in the house Total 16.2 83.0 0.3 0.3 0.1 0.0 100.0 7038 Area  Urban 18.9 80.3 0.4 0.4 0.0 0.0 100.0 4974 Other 9.8 89.5 0.3 0.1 0.1 0.1 100.0 2064 Education of household head  None 9.5 90.3 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.0 100.0 1218 Primary 17.3 82.4 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 5034 Secondary or higher 19.9 75.8 1.6 2.7 0.0 0.0 100.0 779 Missing/DK (*) (*) (*) (*) (*) (*) 100.0 7 Wealth index quintiles  Poorest 12.6 87.0 0.1 0.0 0.2 0.0 100.0 1637 Second 11.0 87.7 0.0 1.3 0.0 0.0 100.0 1651 Middle 19.0 79.7 1.0 0.1 0.0 0.1 100.0 1524 Fourth 15.8 84.0 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 1429 Richest 29.8 69.7 0.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 797 Wealth index   Poorest 60 percent 14.1 84.9 0.4 0.5 0.1 0.0 100.0 4812 Richest 40 percent 20.8 78.9 0.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 2226 (*) Figures that are based on less than 25 unweighted cases Monitoring the situation of children and women 75 VIIVII WATER WATER AND SANITATIONAND SANITATION Safe drinking water is a basic necessity for good health. Unsafe drinking water can be a significant carrier of diseases such as cholera, typhoid, and schistosomiasis. Drinking water can also be tainted with chemical and physical contaminants with harmful effects on human health. In addition to its association with disease, access to drinking water may be particularly important for women and children, especially in other areas, who bear the primary responsibility for carrying water, often for long distances. The MDG goal (7, C) is to reduce by half, between 1990 and 2015, the proportion of people without sustainable access to safe drinking water and basic sanitation. For more details on water and sanitation and to access some reference documents, please visit the UNICEF ChildInfo website43 or the website of the WHO/UNICEF Joint Monitoring Programme for Water Supply and Sanitation44. Use of Improved Water Sources The distribution of the population by main source of drinking water is shown in Table WS.1. The population using improved sources of drinking water are those using any of the following types of supply: piped water (into dwelling, compound, yard or plot, to neighbour, public tap/standpipe), tube well/borehole, protected well, protected spring, and rainwater collection. Bottled water is considered as an improved water source only if the household is using an improved water source for handwashing and cooking. Overall, almost 100 percent of the population is using an improved source of drinking water. The majority of the population use water piped into dwelling/yard/plot or to neighbour (82 percent) or bottled water (11 percent), Figure WS.1. The source of drinking water for the population varies by region (Table WS.1). In Vojvodina, 70 percent of the population uses drinking water that is piped into their dwelling or into their yard or plot. 84 percent use piped water in the Belgrade region, 87 percent in Sumadija and Western Serbia and 88 percent in Southern and Eastern Serbia. The second most important source of drinking water in Vojvodina is bottled water (22 percent) as is the case in the Belgrade region (11 percent). 43 http://www.childinfo.org/wes.html 44 http://www.wssinfo.org 76 Serbia Multiple Indicator Cluster Survey 2014 and Serbia Roma Settlements Multiple Indicator Cluster Survey 2014 Table WS.1: Use of improved water sources Percent distribution of household population according to main source of drinking water and percentage of household population using improved drinking water sources, Serbia, 2014   Main source of Improved sources Piped water Tube-well/ borehole Protected well Protected springInto dwelling Into yard/plot To neighbour Public tap/ stand-pipe Total 81.1 0.6 0.3 1.0 1.7 2.5 1.7 Region  Belgrade 83.5 0.1 0.5 0.2 1.5 2.2 1.0 Vojvodina 69.2 0.4 0.2 2.5 2.4 0.3 2.7 Sumadija and Western Serbia 86.4 0.6 0.1 0.3 1.0 3.9 1.5 Southern and Eastern Serbia 86.2 1.5 0.4 1.0 1.9 3.8 1.4 Area  Urban 84.0 0.1 0.2 0.9 0.5 0.3 1.6 Other 77.0 1.4 0.4 1.1 3.5 5.7 1.9 Education of household head  None 77.9 1.9 9.3 0.0 0.6 5.8 2.5 Primary 80.3 1.8 0.4 1.4 2.8 5.4 1.4 Secondary 82.4 0.3 0.1 1.0 1.5 1.7 1.9 Higher 79.5 0.0 0.0 0.4 1.0 0.6 1.6 Missing/DK (80.9) (0.0) (0.0) (0.0) (0.0) (19.1) (0.0) Wealth index quintile  Poorest 77.3 2.7 1.4 1.6 4.0 6.4 1.9 Second 79.9 0.5 0.1 2.3 2.6 3.9 3.3 Middle 84.7 0.0 0.0 0.9 1.0 1.5 1.8 Fourth 85.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.8 0.8 1.2 Richest 78.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 Ethnicity of household head  Serbian 81.8 0.6 0.1 0.9 1.8 2.7 1.7 Hungarian 71.4 0.0 0.0 2.1 3.1 0.2 0.3 Bosnian 92.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.3 2.4 Roma 76.2 4.6 8.1 1.9 1.0 3.7 0.7 Other 76.3 0.8 0.1 1.4 0.1 1.0 3.4 Does not want to declare 76.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.7 0.0 0.0 Missing/DK (*) (*) (*) (*) (*) (*) (*) 1 MICS indicator 4.1; MDG indicator 7.8 — Use of improved drinking water sources a 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. ( ) 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 77 drinking water Total Percentage using improved sources of drinking water1 Number of household members Unimproved sources Bottled watera Unprotected well Unprotected spring Tanker truck Surface water Bottled watera Other 10.5 0.2 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 100.0 99.5 19212 11.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 100.0 4345 21.8 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 100.0 99.6 5113 5.4 0.5 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.2 100.0 99.2 5284 3.0 0.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.3 100.0 99.3 4470 12.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 100.0 99.9 11345 8.0 0.5 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.3 100.0 98.9 7867 1.4 0.3 0.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 99.4 352 5.4 0.8 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.2 100.0 98.9 4906 10.7 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 100.0 99.7 9740 16.7 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 100.0 99.8 4185 (0.0) (0.0) (0.0) (0.0) (0.0) (0.0) (0.0) 100.0 (100.0) 30 2.9 0.9 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.7 100.0 98.2 3843 6.9 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 100.0 99.6 3840 9.6 0.2 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 99.7 3841 11.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 100.0 3854 21.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 100.0 3834 9.8 0.2 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 100.0 99.5 16761 22.6 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 99.8 746 5.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 100.0 290 3.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 100.0 426 16.3 0.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 99.4 779 22.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 100.0 201 (*) (*) (*) (*) (*) (*) (*) 100.0 (*) 8 78 Serbia Multiple Indicator Cluster Survey 2014 and Serbia Roma Settlements Multiple Indicator Cluster Survey 2014 Piped into dwelling/yard/plot/to neighbour 82% Public tap/standpipe 1% Tubewell/borehole 2% Protected well or spring 4% Unimprovedsources 1% Bottled water 11% Figure WS.1: Percent distribution of household members by source of drinking water, Serbia, 2014 Note: The figures do not add up to 100 percent because of rounding. Use of household water treatment is presented in Table WS.2. Households were asked of ways they may be treating water at home to make it safer to drink. Boiling water, adding bleach or chlorine, using a water filter, and using solar disinfection are considered proper treatments of drinking water. The table shows water treatment by all household members and the percentage of household members living in households using unimproved water sources but using appropriate water treatment methods. The percentage of household members in households using unimproved drinking water sources and using an appropriate water treatment method is 3 percent. The main water treatment methods used by household members in households using unimproved drinking water sources are: using other methods (9 percent) and adding bleach/chlorine (3 percent). 92 percent of household members in Serbia do not use any water treatment method (those both using improved and unimproved drinking water sources). For household members in households using unimproved drinking water sources the percentage not using any water treatment method is 97.   None Boil Add bleach/ chlorine Total 92.4 0.6 1.0 Region  Belgrade 88.5 0.7 0.3 Vojvodina 91.6 0.6 0.1 Sumadija and Western Serbia 93.3 0.5 1.9 Southern and Eastern Serbia 96.0 0.4 1.5 Area  Urban 92.9 0.5 0.1 Other 91.6 0.6 2.2 Main source of drinking water  Improved 92.4 0.6 0.9 Unimproved 87.3 0.0 3.3 Education of household head  None 96.0 1.0 1.6 Primary 94.7 0.2 1.6 Secondary 92.7 0.7 0.7 Higher 88.9 0.5 0.6 Missing/DK (74.3) (0.0) (0.0) Wealth index quintile  Poorest 94.8 1.1 1.4 Second 94.8 0.3 1.2 Middle 93.6 0.3 1.4 Fourth 89.9 0.5 0.4 Richest 88.8 0.6 0.3 Ethnicity of household head  Serbian 92.4 0.5 1.0 Hungarian 93.9 0.9 0.0 Bosnian 96.7 0.6 0.0 Roma 96.5 0.6 0.0 Other 86.6 0.6 1.1 Does not want to declare 97.0 0.6 0.0 1 MICS indicator 4.2 — Water treatment na: not applicable ( ) Figures that are based on 25-49 unweighted cases  (*) Figures that are based on less than 25 unweighted cases  “-” denotes 0 unweighted cases in that cell  Monitoring the situation of children and women 79 Table WS.2: Household water treatment 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, Serbia, 2014 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 Strain through a cloth Use water filter Solar disinfection Let it stand and settle Other Missing/DK 0.1 4.8 0.0 0.2 0.8 0.0 19212 3.3 96 0.1 9.5 0.0 0.4 0.6 0.1 4345 (*) 1 0.0 7.3 0.0 0.0 0.3 0.0 5113 (*) 22 0.0 1.9 0.0 0.2 1.6 0.1 5284 (4.8) 43 0.2 1.0 0.0 0.1 0.7 0.0 4470 (0.0) 29 0.1 5.7 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.0 11345 (*) 12 0.1 3.6 0.0 0.3 1.6 0.1 7867 3.8 83 0.1 4.9 0.0 0.2 0.8 0.0 19116 na na 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 9.4 0.0 96 3.3 96 0.0 1.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 352 (*) 2 0.2 1.4 0.0 0.2 1.7 0.0 4906 5.9 53 0.0 5.0 0.0 0.1 0.3 0.1 9740 (0.0) 33 0.0 8.7 0.0 0.3 1.0 0.0 4185 (*) 7 (0.0) (25.7) (0.0) (0.0) (0.0) (0.0) 30   0.1 1.4 0.0 0.2 1.0 0.0 3843 4.7 67 0.1 2.7 0.0 0.0 0.7 0.1 3840 (*) 14 0.1 2.7 0.0 0.4 1.4 0.1 3841 (*) 13 0.0 8.4 0.0 0.3 0.5 0.0 3854 (*) 1 0.0 9.0 0.0 0.0 0.5 0.0 3834   0.0 4.7 0.0 0.2 0.9 0.0 16761 3.5 90 0.0 4.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 746 (*) 2 0.0 2.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 290 - - 1.7 1.1 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.0 426 - - 0.0 11.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 779 (*) 4 0.0 2.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 201 - - 80 Serbia Multiple Indicator Cluster Survey 2014 and Serbia Roma Settlements Multiple Indicator Cluster Survey 2014 The amount of time it takes to obtain water is presented in Table WS.3 and the person who usually collected the water in Table WS.4. Note that for Table WS.3, household members using water on the premises are also shown in this table and for others, the results refer to one roundtrip from home to drinking water source. Information on the number of trips made in one day was not collected. Table WS.3 shows that for 96 percent of household members, the drinking water source is on the premises. The availability of water on premises is associated with higher use, better family hygiene and better health outcomes. For a water collection round trip of 30 minutes or more it has been observed that households carry progressively less water and are likely to compromise on the minimal basic drinking water needs of the household. For 2 percent of all household members, it takes less than 30 minutes to get to the water source and bring water while the same percentage (2 percent) of household members spend 30 minutes or more for this purpose. Table WS.3: Time to source of drinking water 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, Serbia, 2014   Time to source of drinking water Users of improved drinking water sources Users of unimproved drinking water sources Total Number of household members 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 Total 95.9 1.8 1.6 0.1 0.2 0.1 0.2 0.0 100.0 19212 Region  Belgrade 98.5 0.3 1.0 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 4345 Vojvodina 93.2 3.4 2.7 0.2 0.0 0.1 0.3 0.0 100.0 5113 Sumadija and Western Serbia 96.8 1.2 1.1 0.0 0.6 0.2 0.0 0.0 100.0 5284 Southern and Eastern Serbia 95.4 2.2 1.7 0.0 0.3 0.0 0.3 0.1 100.0 4470 Area  Urban 97.1 1.2 1.6 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 11345 Other 94.3 2.8 1.8 0.1 0.5 0.2 0.4 0.0 100.0 7867 Education of household head  None 96.6 1.5 1.2 0.0 0.3 0.0 0.3 0.0 100.0 352 Primary 94.8 2.6 1.5 0.1 0.9 0.2 0.0 0.0 100.0 4906 Secondary 95.9 1.9 1.7 0.1 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.0 100.0 9740 Higher 97.3 0.8 1.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.0 100.0 4185 Missing/DK (100.0) (0.0) (0.0) (0.0) (0.0) (0.0) (0.0) (0.0) 100.0 30 Wealth index quintile  Poorest 92.6 3.3 2.3 0.1 1.1 0.2 0.4 0.1 100.0 3843 Second 92.1 4.0 3.3 0.2 0.0 0.2 0.2 0.0 100.0 3840 Middle 96.5 1.2 1.7 0.2 0.2 0.0 0.2 0.0 100.0 3841 Fourth 98.6 0.7 0.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 3854 Richest 99.8 0.1 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 3834 Ethnicity of household head  Serbian 95.9 1.8 1.7 0.1 0.3 0.1 0.2 0.0 100.0 16761 Hungarian 95.8 1.1 2.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.0 100.0 746 Bosnian 97.6 .3 2.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 290 Roma 97.4 1.0 1.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 426 Other 94.3 4.9 0.3 0.0 0.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 779 Does not want to declare 98.3 1.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 201 Missing/DK (*) (*) (*) (*) (*) (*) (*) (*) 100.0 8 ( ) 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 81 Table WS.4 shows that for the majority of households, when the source of drinking water is not on the premises, an adult man is the person usually collecting the water (72 percent), while for the rest of the households adult women collect the water (21 percent). Table WS.4: Person collecting water 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, Serbia, 2014   Percentage of households without drinking water on premises Number of households Person usually collecting drinking watera Number of households without drinking water on premises Adult woman Adult man Female child under age 15 Missing/DK Total Total 3.8 6191 20.7 72.3 0.6 6.5 100.0 232 Region  Belgrade 1.6 1458 (*) (*) (*) (*) 100.0 23 Vojvodina 6.4 1785 23.9 71.1 0.0 5.0 100.0 114 Sumadija and Western Serbia 2.4 1645 19.7 73.9 0.0 6.5 100.0 40 Southern and Eastern Serbia 4.3 1303 16.8 77.6 2.4 3.1 100.0 55 Area  Urban 2.8 3816 19.6 72.1 0.0 8.3 100.0 106 Other 5.3 2375 21.6 72.4 1.0 5.0 100.0 126 Education of household head  None 4.9 125 (*) (*) (*) (*) 100.0 6 Primary 4.7 1645 22.0 72.6 0.3 5.1 100.0 77 Secondary 3.7 2970 22.0 70.7 0.0 7.4 100.0 110 Higher 2.7 1445 (13.9) (78.4) (0.0) (7.7) 100.0 40 Missing/DK (*) 6 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 - Wealth index quintile  Poorest 5.7 1572 24.2 69.9 1.5 4.4 100.0 90 Second 7.6 1270 21.4 70.9 0.0 7.7 100.0 96 Middle 2.6 1167 (15.3) (75.8) (0.0) (8.9) 100.0 30 Fourth 1.2 1112 (*) (*) (*) (*) 100.0 14 Richest 0.2 1070 (*) (*) (*) (*) 100.0 3 Ethnicity of household head  Serbian 3.6 5365 17.4 74.2 0.7 7.7 100.0 195 Hungarian 5.1 289 (*) (*) (*) (*) 100.0 15 Bosnian 2.1 70 (*) (*) (*) (*) 100.0 1 Roma 3.3 98 (*) (*) (*) (*) 100.0 3 Other 5.6 294 (*) (*) (*) (*) 100.0 16 Does not want to declare 1.5 72 (*) (*) (*) (*) 100.0 1 Missing/DK (*) 3 (*) (*) (*) (*) 100.0 - a The column “Male child under age 15” is not shown in the table because there were no recorded cases ( ) Figures that are based on 25-49 unweighted cases (*) Figures that are based on less than 25 unweighted cases “-” denotes 0 unweighted cases in that cell  82 Serbia Multiple Indicator Cluster Survey 2014 and Serbia Roma Settlements Multiple Indicator Cluster Survey 201482 Serbia Multiple Indicator Cluster Survey 2014 and Serbia Roma Settlements Multiple Indicator Cluster Survey 2014 Use of Improved Water Sources in Roma Settlements 98 percent of the population in Roma settlements uses an improved source of drinking water — 100 percent in urban areas and 92 percent in other areas. The availability of improved sources of drinking water varies by socioeconomic status (Table WS.1R). Use of improved water sources is positively associated with wealth. The proportion of the population in Roma settlements using drinking water piped into their dwelling is 75 percent. In addition, 11 percent use water piped into a yard/plot, 4 percent use piped water to neighbour, 3 percent use protected wells and 2 percent use public taps/standpipes. The population using unimproved water sources use a tanker truck (1 percent), other sources or unprotected wells (1 percent), Figure WS.1R. Table WS.1R: Use of improved water sources Percent distribution of household population according to main source of drinking water and percentage of household population using improved drinking water sources, Serbia Roma Settlements, 2014 Main source of drinking Improved sourcesa Piped water Tubewell/ borehole Protected well Protected springInto dwelling Into yard/plot To neighbour Public tap/ stand-pipe Total 74.7 10.6 4.3 2.2 1.8 2.7 0.2 Area  Urban 83.1 9.6 3.5 0.9 0.9 0.7 0.0 Other 51.2 13.3 6.5 5.9 4.4 8.3 0.9 Education of household head  None 51.2 22.9 9.5 5.2 2.0 3.9 0.0 Primary 77.3 9.4 4.0 1.7 1.9 2.2 0.3 Secondary or higher 88.3 2.5 0.2 1.2 1.4 4.0 0.4 Missing/DK (*) (*) (*) (*) (*) (*) (*) Wealth index quintile  Poorest 26.5 34.1 16.2 8.6 3.7 3.2 0.0 Second 73.8 13.1 3.4 0.6 1.0 5.8 0.1 Middle 85.2 3.8 1.7 0.6 2.6 2.5 0.6 Fourth 95.5 0.9 0.3 0.5 0.7 1.4 0.0 Richest 92.8 0.9 0.0 0.8 1.3 0.5 0.5 Wealth index  Poorest 60 percent 61.8 17.0 7.1 3.2 2.4 3.9 0.2 Richest 40 percent 94.2 0.9 0.2 0.7 1.0 0.9 0.3 1 MICS indicator 4.1; MDG indicator 7.8 — Use of improved drinking water sources a Columns “Rain-water” under “Improved sources” and “Surface water collection” under “Unimproved sources” are not shown in the table because there were no recorded cases. b 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 hand washing. (*) Figures that are based on less than 25 unweighted cases Monitoring the situation of children and women 83Monitoring the situation of children and women 83 water Total Percentage using improved sources of drinking water1 Number of household members Unimproved sourcesa Bottled waterb Unprotected well Unprotected spring Tanker truck Bottled water b Other 1.1 0.3 0.0 1.2 0.1 0.6 100.0 97.7 8595 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.3 100.0 99.7 6337 1.5 1.2 0.1 4.6 0.3 1.5 100.0 92.2 2259 1.0 0.1 0.0 3.0 0.0 1.3 100.0 95.6 1344 1.2 0.4 0.0 1.0 0.1 0.5 100.0 98.0 6070 0.8 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.0 0.7 100.0 98.8 1175 (*) (*) (*) (*) (*) (*) 100.0 (*) 7 0.2 0.9 0.0 4.9 0.2 1.5 100.0 92.4 1720 0.2 0.7 0.1 0.7 0.0 0.6 100.0 97.9 1725 1.9 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.2 0.8 100.0 98.8 1711 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.3 0.0 0.3 100.0 99.5 1720 3.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 100.0 1718 0.8 0.5 0.1 1.9 0.2 0.9 100.0 96.4 5157 1.6 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.1 100.0 99.7 3438 Figure WS.1R: Percent distribution of household members by source of drinking water, Serbia Roma Settlements, 2014 Use of household water treatment is presented in Table WS.2R. Households were asked of ways they may be treating water at home to make it safer to drink. Boiling water, adding bleach or chlorine, using a water filter, and using solar disinfection are considered proper treatments of drinking water. The table shows water treatment by all household members and the percentage of household members living in households using unimproved water sources but using appropriate water treatment methods. The percentage of household members in households in Roma settlements using unimproved drinking water sources and using an appropriate water treatment method is 4 percent. The water treatment method used by household members in households using unimproved drinking water sources is use of a water filter (3 percent). 96 percent of household members in households using unimproved drinking water sources in Roma settlements do not use any water treatment method. Piped into dwelling, yard or plot 85% To neighbour 4% Public tap/standpipe 2% Tubewell/borehole 2% Protected well or spring 3% Unimproved sources 2% Bottled water 1% Note: The figures do not add up to 100 percent because of rounding. 84 Serbia Multiple Indicator Cluster Survey 2014 and Serbia Roma Settlements Multiple Indicator Cluster Survey 201484 Serbia Multiple Indicator Cluster Survey 2014 and Serbia Roma Settlements Multiple Indicator Cluster Survey 2014 Table WS.2R: Household water treatment 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, Serbia Roma Settlements, 2014   Water treatment method used in the household Number of household membersNone Boil Add bleach/ chlorine Strain through a cloth Use water filter Solar disinfection Let it stand and settle Other Missing/DK Total 96.7 2.1 0.2 0.2 0.4 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.0 8595 Area Urban 97.3 2.1 0.0 0.1 0.4 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 6337 Other 95.0 1.9 0.6 0.5 0.4 0.0 0.6 1.5 0.0 2259 Main source of drinking water  Improved 96.7 2.1 0.2 0.2 0.3 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.0 8400 Unimproved 95.9 0.9 0.0 0.0 3.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 196 Education of household head  None 97.0 1.8 0.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 1.0 0.0 1344 Primary 96.7 2.0 0.2 0.1 0.5 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.0 6070 Secondary or higher 96.0 2.5 0.0 1.2 0.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1175 Missing/DK (*) (*) (*) (*) (*) (*) (*) (*) (*) 7 Wealth index quintile  Poorest 98.1 1.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.3 0.0 1720 Second 97.3 1.6 0.4 0.0 0.3 0.0 0.0 0.7 0.0 1725 Middle 98.0 0.7 0.2 0.3 0.9 0.0 0.2 0.1 0.0 1711 Fourth 96.6 2.1 0.2 0.5 0.0 0.0 0.4 0.2 0.0 1720 Richest 93.4 4.5 0.0 0.4 0.8 0.0 0.0 0.9 0.0 1718 Wealth index  Poorest 60 percent 97.8 1.3 0.2 0.1 0.4 0.0 0.1 0.3 0.0 5157 Richest 40 percent 95.0 3.3 0.1 0.4 0.4 0.0 0.2 0.6 0.0 3438 1 MICS indicator 4.2 — Water treatment na: not applicable ( ) Figures that are based on 25-49 unweighted cases (*) Figures that are based on less than 25 unweighted cases  “-” denotes 0 unweighted cases in that cell The amount of time it takes to obtain water is presented in Table WS.3R and the person who usually collected the water in Table WS.4R. Note that for Table WS.3R, household members using water on the premises are also shown in this table and for others, the results refer to one roundtrip from home to drinking water source. Information on the number of trips made in one day was not collected. Table WS.3R shows that for 94 percent of household members, the drinking water source is on the premises. For 4 percent of all household members, it takes less than 30 minutes to get to the water source and bring water, while 1 percent of household members spend 30 minutes or more for this purpose. There are some difference between times spent collecting water between household members in urban and other areas. In other areas, 81 percent of households have drinking water on the premises compared to 99 percent in urban areas. There are 17 percent of household members in other areas and less than one percent in urban areas that do not have water on the premises. Among household members in other areas that do not have water on the premises, for 3 percent of those using improved sources of drinking water and for 2 percent of those using unimproved sources, it takes 30 minutes or more to get to the water source and bring water. Monitoring the situation of children and women 85Monitoring the situation of children and women 85 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 4.1 196 (31.6) 20 1.0 176 na na 4.1 196 0.0 59 6.6 122 (*) 15 - - 0.0 130 (4.9) 36 (30.6) 21 (*) 9 - - 4.3 186 (*) 9   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 Total 94.4 2.5 0.7 0.0 0.6 1.1 0.5 0.1 100.0 8595 Area  Urban 99.1 0.5 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.1 0.0 0.0 100.0 6337 Other 81.2 8.1 2.8 0.1 1.9 3.9 1.7 0.3 100.0 2259 Education of household head  None 89.8 5.0 0.8 0.1 0.7 2.6 1.0 0.0 100.0 1344 Primary 95.1 2.1 0.8 0.0 0.5 1.0 0.4 0.1 100.0 6070 Secondary or higher 96.2 2.2 0.3 0.0 1.1 0.0 0.2 0.0 100.0 1175 Missing/DK (*) (*) (*) (*) (*) (*) (*) (*) 100.0 7 Wealth index quintile  Poorest 82.6 8.6 1.1 0.2 1.0 4.5 1.7 0.4 100.0 1720 Second 96.5 1.0 0.5 0.0 0.9 0.5 0.6 0.0 100.0 1725 Middle 96.9 1.4 0.5 0.0 0.8 0.4 0.0 0.0 100.0 1711 Fourth 98.4 0.0 1.1 0.0 0.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 1720 Richest 97.8 1.7 0.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 1718 Wealth index   Poorest 60 percent 92.0 3.7 0.7 0.1 0.9 1.8 0.8 0.1 100.0 5157 Richest 40 percent 98.1 0.9 0.8 0.0 0.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 3438 (*) Figures that are based on less than 25 unweighted cases  Table WS.3R: Time to source of drinking water 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, Serbia Roma Settlements, 2014 86 Serbia Multiple Indicator Cluster Survey 2014 and Serbia Roma Settlements Multiple Indicator Cluster Survey 201486 Serbia Multiple Indicator Cluster Survey 2014 and Serbia Roma Settlements Multiple Indicator Cluster Survey 2014 Table WS.4R shows that for one half of households, an adult woman is usually the person collecting the water, when the source of drinking water is not on the premises (56 percent), while adult men collect water in 37 percent of those cases. Table WS.4R: Person collecting water 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, Serbia Roma Settlements, 2014   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 Total 5.7 1743 55.5 37.3 1.3 0.4 5.5 100.0 99 Area  Urban 0.6 1225 (*) (*) (*) (*) (*) 100.0 8 Other 17.6 518 54.5 38.1 1.4 0.0 6.0 100.0 91 Education of household head  None 10.9 282 (59.5) (36.8) (0.0) (0.0) (3.7) 100.0 31 Primary 5.0 1209 54.6 35.5 2.1 0.6 7.2 100.0 61 Secondary or higher 3.1 250 (*) (*) (*) (*) (*) 100.0 8 Missing/DK (*) 1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 - Wealth index quintile  Poorest 18.7 365 56.8 36.1 0.0 0.5 6.7 100.0 68 Second 3.2 365 (*) (*) (*) (*) (*) 100.0 12 Middle 2.8 350 (*) (*) (*) (*) (*) 100.0 10 Fourth 0.7 326 (*) (*) (*) (*) (*) 100.0 2 Richest 2.2 337 (*) (*) (*) (*) (*) 100.0 7 Wealth index  Poorest 60 percent 8.3 1081 55.5 36.5 1.4 0.4 6.1 100.0 90 Richest 40 percent 1.4 661 (*) (*) (*) (*) (*) 100.0 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 87 Use of Improved Sanitation Inadequate disposal of human excreta and personal hygiene is associated with a range of diseases including diarrhoeal diseases and polio and is an important determinant for stunting. Improved sanitation can reduce diarrhoeal disease by more than a third45, and can significantly lessen the adverse health impacts of other disorders responsible for death and disease among millions of children in developing countries. Table WS.5: Types of sanitation facilities Percent distribution of household population according to type of toilet facility used by the household, Serbia, 2014   Type of toilet facility used by household Open defecation (no facility) Total Number of household members Improved sanitation facility Unimproved sanitation facility Flush/Pour flush to: Ventilated improved pit latrine Pit latrine with slab Flush/ Pour flush to some- where else Pit latrine without slab/ open pit Bucket Other Missing/DK Piped sewer system Septic tank Pit latrine Unknown place/not sure/DK where Total 57.2 35.3 0.1 0.3 0.1 4.6 1.0 1.1 0.0 0.2 0.1 0.1 100.0 19212 Region  Belgrade 73.0 25.4 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.5 0.1 0.4 0.0 0.0 0.3 0.0 100.0 4345 Vojvodina 46.0 48.6 0.0 0.2 0.0 4.5 0.1 0.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 100.0 5113 Sumadija and Western Serbia 56.0 36.3 0.1 0.4 0.1 2.4 2.7 1.3 0.0 0.6 0.2 0.0 100.0 5284 Southern and Eastern Serbia 56.0 28.4 0.1 0.4 0.2 11.3 0.9 2.5 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.3 100.0 4470 Area Urban 83.3 14.5 0.0 0.1 0.0 1.5 0.1 0.4 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 100.0 11345 Other 19.5 65.3 0.1 0.5 0.2 9.1 2.3 2.2 0.0 0.4 0.1 0.2 100.0 7867 Education of household head  None 29.4 31.0 0.4 0.0 0.0 26.0 0.6 10.1 0.4 0.0 0.3 1.8 100.0 352 Primary 34.1 50.2 0.3 0.5 0.3 9.3 1.8 3.0 0.0 0.3 0.0 0.3 100.0 4906 Secondary 59.1 36.3 0.0 0.2 0.0 3.1 0.6 0.3 0.0 0.2 0.2 0.0 100.0 9740 Higher 81.9 15.8 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.8 1.2 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 100.0 4185 Missing/DK (73.4) (7.5) (0.0) (19.1) (0.0) (0.0) (0.0) (0.0) (0.0) (0.0) (0.0) (0.0) 100.0 30 Wealth index quintile  Poorest 24.9 44.7 0.2 0.9 0.4 19.2 3.1 5.6 0.0 0.3 0.2 0.5 100.0 3843 Second 43.7 50.9 0.2 0.3 0.0 3.1 1.2 0.0 0.0 0.5 0.1 0.0 100.0 3840 Middle 60.4 38.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.6 0.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 100.0 3841 Fourth 71.3 28.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 3854 Richest 85.6 14.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.0 100.0 3834 Ethnicity of household head  Serbian 58.0 35.3 0.1 0.3 0.1 3.8 1.1 1.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.1 100.0 16761 Hungarian 34.1 50.1 0.0 0.9 0.0 14.7 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 746 Bosnian 97.8 1.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.8 0.0 100.0 290 Roma 39.6 26.8 0.6 0.0 0.0 18.7 1.6 11.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.4 100.0 426 Other 49.0 43.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 6.4 0.2 0.3 0.0 0.9 0.0 0.1 100.0 779 Does not want to declare 83.9 16.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 201 Missing/DK (*) (*) (*) (*) (*) (*) (*) (*) (*) (*) (*) (*) 100.0 8 ( ) Figures that are based on 25-49 unweighted cases (*) Figures that are based on less than 25 unweighted cases 45 CHERG 2010. Sandy Cairncross, Caroline Hunt, Sophie Boisson, Kristof Bostoen, Val Curtis, Isaac CH Fung, and Wolf-Peter Schmidt Water, sanitation and hygiene for the prevention of diarrhoea. Int. J. Epidemiology. 2010 39: i193-i205 88 Serbia Multiple Indicator Cluster Survey 2014 and Serbia Roma Settlements Multiple Indicator Cluster Survey 2014 An improved sanitation facility is defined as one that hygienically separates human excreta from human contact. Improved sanitation facilities for excreta disposal include flush or pour flush to a piped sewer system, septic tank, or pit latrine; ventilated improved pit latrine, pit latrine with slab, and use of a composting toilet. The data on the use of improved sanitation facilities in Serbia are provided in this report in Table WS.5. 97 percent of the population of Serbia is living in households using improved sanitation facilities (Table WS.5). This percentage is 99 in urban areas and 95 percent in other areas. Residents of Sumadija and Western Serbia are less likely than others to use improved facilities (95 percent). Table WS.6: Use and sharing of sanitation facilities 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, Serbia, 2014   Users of improved sanitation facilities Users of unimproved sanitation facilities Open defecation (no facility) Total Number of household membersNot shared1 Public facility Shared by Not shared Shared by 5 households or less More than 5 households 5 households or less Total 96.9 0.0 0.4 0.1 2.4 0.0 0.1 100.0 19212 Region  Belgrade 98.9 0.0 0.3 0.0 0.8 0.0 0.0 100.0 4345 Vojvodina 99.0 0.0 0.3 0.0 0.6 0.0 0.1 100.0 5113 Sumadija and Western Serbia 94.4 0.0 0.4 0.4 4.7 0.0 0.0 100.0 5284 Southern and Eastern Serbia 95.5 0.0 0.8 0.0 3.4 0.1 0.3 100.0 4470 Area  Urban 98.8 0.0 0.3 0.2 0.6 0.0 0.0 100.0 11345 Other 94.1 0.0 0.6 0.0 5.0 0.0 0.2 100.0 7867 Education of household head  None 84.9 0.0 1.9 0.0 11.4 0.0 1.8 100.0 352 Primary 93.6 0.0 0.8 0.1 5.1 0.0 0.3 100.0 4906 Secondary 98.3 0.0 0.3 0.1 1.2 0.0 0.0 100.0 9740 Higher 98.5 0.0 0.1 0.1 1.3 0.0 0.0 100.0 4185 Missing/DK (100.0) (0.0) (0.0) (0.0) (0.0) (0.0) (0.0) 100.0 30 Wealth index quintile  Poorest 88.1 0.0 1.8 0.4 9.1 0.1 0.5 100.0 3843 Second 97.8 0.0 0.3 0.2 1.8 0.0 0.0 100.0 3840 Middle 99.1 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.8 0.0 0.0 100.0 3841 Fourth 99.8 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 100.0 3854 Richest 99.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.3 0.0 0.0 100.0 3834 Ethnicity of household head  Serbian 97.0 0.0 0.4 0.1 2.4 0.0 0.1 100.0 16761 Hungarian 99.1 0.0 0.4 0.2 0.2 0.0 0.0 100.0 746 Bosnian 99.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.8 0.0 0.0 100.0 290 Roma 83.9 0.0 1.8 0.0 12.5 0.4 1.4 100.0 426 Other 97.9 0.0 0.5 0.0 1.4 0.0 0.1 100.0 779 Does not want to declare 100.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 201 Missing/DK (*) (*) (*) (*) (*) (*) (*) 100.0 8 1 MICS indicator 4.3; MDG indicator 7.9 — Use of improved sanitation ( ) 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 89 The table indicates that use of improved sanitation facilities is negatively correlated with wealth because about 9 percent of household members from the poorest quintile use unimproved sanitation facilities and this decreases to 0 percent for the richest. In other areas, the population is mostly using flush to septic tank (65 percent). In contrast, the most common facilities in urban areas are flush toilets with a connection to a sewage system (83 percent). 19 percent of the population in poorest households use a pit latrine with slab, 6 percent use a pit latrine without slab/open pit, while 3 percent use flush/ pour flush to somewhere else. Among household members whose head of household has no education, 26 percent use a pit latrine with slab, 10 percent use a pit latrine without slab/open pit and 2 percent does not have any facility. The MDGs and the WHO / UNICEF Joint Monitoring Programme (JMP) for Water Supply and Sanitation classify otherwise acceptable sanitation facilities which are public or shared between two or more households as unimproved. Therefore, “use of improved sanitation” is used both in the context of this report and as an MDG indicator to refer to improved sanitation facilities, which are not public or shared. Data on the use of improved sanitation are presented in Tables WS.6, WS.6R, WS.7 and WS.7R. As shown in Table WS.6, 97 percent of the household population is using an improved sanitation facility. Use of a shared, both improved and unimproved sanitation facility is uncommon (Figure WS.2). In total, 99 percent of the population in urban areas use unshared improved toilets, while the figure is 94 percent within other areas. Less than one percent of household members use an improved toilet facility that is shared with other households. Overall, 2 percent of household members in the poorest households share sanitation facilities (improved and unimproved) and in all cases, these are shared with 5 households or less. 9 percent of household members in the poorest households use unimproved sanitation facilities (do not share sanitation facilities). In its 2008 report46, the JMP developed a new way of presenting the access figures, by disaggregating and refining the data on drinking-water and sanitation and reflecting them in “ladder” format. This ladder allows a disaggregated analysis of trends in a three rung ladder for drinking-water and a four-rung ladder for sanitation. For sanitation, this gives an understanding of the proportion of the population with no sanitation facilities at all — who revert to open defecation, of those reliant on technologies defined by JMP as “unimproved”, of those sharing sanitation facilities of otherwise acceptable technology, and those using “improved” sanitation facilities. Figure WS.2: Percent distribution of household members by use and sharing of sanitation facilities, Serbia, 2014 46 WHO/UNICEF JMP (2008), MDG assessment report — http://www.wssinfo.org/fileadmin/user_upload/resources/1251794333-JMP_08_en.pdf Improved sanitation facility – not shared 97% Improved public facility 0% Improved sanitation facility – shared 1% Unimproved sanitation facility not shared 2% Unimproved sanitation facility – shared 0% Unimproved public facility 0% Open defecation 0% 90 Serbia Multiple Indicator Cluster Survey 2014 and Serbia Roma Settlements Multiple Indicator Cluster Survey 2014 Table WS.7: Drinking water and sanitation ladders Percentage of household population by drinking water and sanitation ladders, Serbia, 2014   Percentage of household population using: Improved drinking water1,a Unimproved drinking water Total Improved sanitation2 Unimproved sanitation Piped into dwelling, plot or yard Other improved Shared improved facilities Unimproved facilities Open defecation Total 92.0 7.5 0.5 100.0 96.9 0.5 2.4 0.1 Region  Belgrade 94.6 5.4 0.0 100.0 98.9 0.3 0.8 0.0 Vojvodina 90.7 8.9 0.4 100.0 99.0 0.3 0.6 0.1 Sumadija and Western Serbia 92.4 6.8 0.8 100.0 94.4 0.8 4.7 0.0 Southern and Eastern Serbia 90.6 8.7 0.7 100.0 95.5 0.8 3.4 0.3 Area  Urban 96.1 3.8 0.1 100.0 98.8 0.5 0.6 0.0 Other 86.1 12.8 1.1 100.0 94.1 0.6 5.1 0.2 Education of household head  None 81.2 18.2 0.6 100.0 84.9 1.9 11.4 1.8 Primary 87.2 11.8 1.1 100.0 93.6 1.0 5.1 0.3 Secondary 93.1 6.5 0.3 100.0 98.3 0.4 1.3 0.0 Higher 96.1 3.8 0.2 100.0 98.5 0.2 1.3 0.0 Missing/DK (80.9) (19.1) (0.0) 100.0 (100.0) (0.0) (0.0) (0.0) Wealth index quintile  Poorest 82.7 15.6 1.8 100.0 88.1 2.2 9.2 0.5 Second 86.9 12.8 0.4 100.0 97.8 0.4 1.8 0.0 Middle 94.2 5.5 0.3 100.0 99.1 0.1 0.8 0.0 Fourth 96.6 3.3 0.0 100.0 99.8 0.1 0.1 0.0 Richest 99.8 0.2 0.0 100.0 99.7 0.0 0.3 0.0 Ethnicity of household head  Serbian 92.0 7.5 0.5 100.0 97.0 0.5 2.4 0.1 Hungarian 92.3 7.5 0.2 100.0 99.1 0.7 0.2 0.0 Bosnian 97.4 2.6 0.0 100.0 99.2 0.0 0.8 0.0 Roma 84.6 15.4 0.0 100.0 83.9 1.8 12.9 1.4 Other 93.2 6.2 0.6 100.0 97.9 0.5 1.4 0.1 Does not want to declare 98.3 1.7 0.0 100.0 100.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Missing/DK (*) (*) (*) 100.0 (*) (*) (*) (*) 1 MICS indicator 4.1; MDG indicator 7.8 — Use of improved drinking water sources 2 MICS indicator 4.3; MDG indicator 7.9 — Use of improved sanitation a Those indicating bottled water as the main source of drinking water are distributed according to the water source used for other purposes such as cooking and handwashing. ( ) Figures that are based on 25-49 unweighted cases (*) Figures that are based on less than 25 unweighted cases Having access to both an improved drinking water source and an improved sanitation facility brings the largest public health benefits to a household. Table WS.7 presents the percentages of household population by drinking water and sanitation ladders. The table also shows the percentage of household members using both improved sources of drinking water47 and an improved sanitary means of excreta disposal. 47 Those indicating bottled water as the main source of drinking water are distributed according to the water source used for other purposes such as cooking and handwashing. Monitoring the situation of children and women 91 Number of household membersTotal Improved drinking water sources and improved sanitation 100.0 96.5 19212 100.0 98.8 4345 100.0 98.6 5113 100.0 94.0 5284 100.0 95.0 4470 100.0 98.8 11345 100.0 93.2 7867 100.0 84.6 352 100.0 93.0 4906 100.0 98.0 9740 100.0 98.4 4185 100.0 (100.0) 30 100.0 86.9 3843 100.0 97.4 3840 100.0 98.8 3841 100.0 99.8 3854 100.0 99.7 3834 100.0 96.6 16761 100.0 98.9 746 100.0 99.2 290 100.0 83.9 426 100.0 97.4 779 100.0 100.0 201 100.0 (*) 8 Figure WS.3: Percentages of household members using improved drinking water sources and improved sanitation, by wealth, Serbia, 2014 In Serbia, almost 100 percent of the population use improved drinking water, 97 percent use improved sanitation and 97 percent use both improved drinking water and improved sanitation. Use of improved sources of drinking water is lower in other areas (86 percent) compared to urban areas (96 percent). There is a positive correlation between education of the head of household and socioeconomic status and the use of improved drinking water sources and improved sanitation. The population in the poorest wealth quintile using improved drinking water sources and improved sanitation is lower (87 percent) compared to the population in other quintiles (97-100 percent), Figure WS.3. 87 97 99 100 100 97 0 20 40 60 80 100 Poorest Second Middle Fourth Richest Serbia Pe rc en t Wealth Index Quintiles 92 Serbia Multiple Indicator Cluster Survey 2014 and Serbia Roma Settlements Multiple Indicator Cluster Survey 201492 Serbia Multiple Indicator Cluster Survey 2014 and Serbia Roma Settlements Multiple Indicator Cluster Survey 2014 Use of Improved Sanitation in Roma Settlements 81 percent of the population in Roma settlements is living in households using improved sanitation facilities (Table WS.5R). There is a difference regarding the area of residence as 84 percent of households use improved sanitation in urban areas and 71 percent in other areas. In other areas, the population is mostly using pit latrines with slabs (30 percent). In contrast, the most common facility in urban areas is a pour flush to a piped sewer system (51 percent). The table indicates that use of improved sanitation facilities is negatively correlated with socioeconomic status of the household and the education of the head of the household. Residents of the poorest households in Roma settlements are less likely to use improved facilities (53 percent) than those in the richest households (98 percent). 42 percent of the population in the poorest households use a pit latrine with slab, and 35 percent of them use a pit latrine without slab/ open pit, while 11 percent does not have facilities. Table WS.5R: Types of sanitation facilities Percent distribution of household population according to type of toilet facility used by the household, Serbia Roma Settlements, 2014   Type of toilet facility used by household Improved sanitation facilitya Flush/Pour flush to: Ventilated improved pit latrine Pit latrine with slab Flush/Pour flush to somewhere else Piped sewer system Septic tank Pit latrine Unknown place/ not sure/DK where Total 42.2 18.8 0.2 0.5 0.0 19.2 1.0 Area  Urban 50.8 17.7 0.2 0.3 0.0 15.3 0.4 Other 18.0 21.9 0.0 1.1 0.0 30.1 2.9 Education of household head  None 30.4 16.3 0.0 1.4 0.0 26.5 0.9 Primary 41.6 18.8 0.2 0.4 0.0 19.2 1.2 Secondary or higher 58.8 21.9 0.0 0.2 0.0 11.0 0.5 Missing/DK (*) (*) (*) (*) (*) (*) (*) Wealth index quintile  Poorest 4.7 4.9 0.0 1.3 0.1 41.8 0.4 Second 21.4 19.0 0.2 1.0 0.0 32.1 1.1 Middle 45.4 22.5 0.4 0.0 0.0 15.5 1.1 Fourth 66.1 23.6 0.2 0.2 0.0 6.1 1.1 Richest 73.6 24.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.4 1.5 Wealth index   Poorest 60 percent 23.8 15.5 0.2 0.8 0.0 29.9 0.9 Richest 40 percent 69.9 23.9 0.1 0.1 0.0 3.2 1.3 a The column “Composting toilet” is not shown in the table because there were no recorded cases. (*) Figures that are based on less than 25 unweighted cases  Figure WS.2R: Percent distribution of household members by use and sharing of sanitation facilities, Serbia Roma Settlements, 2014 Improved sanitation facility – not shared 73% Improved public facility 0% Improved sanitation facility – shared 8% Unimproved sanitation facility – not shared 12% Unimproved sanitation facility – shared 4% Unimproved public facility 0% Open defecation 2% Note: The figures do not add up to 100 percent because of rounding Monitoring the situation of children and women 93Monitoring the situation of children and women 93 Open defecation (no facility) Total Number of household members Unimproved sanitation facility Pit latrine without slab/open pit Bucket Other Missing/DK 15.3 0.2 0.0 0.1 2.4 100.0 8595 13.4 0.2 0.0 0.1 1.4 100.0 6337 20.7 0.1 0.0 0.0 5.2 100.0 2259 19.0 0.2 0.1 0.0 5.2 100.0 1344 16.1 0.2 0.0 0.0 2.2 100.0 6070 7.2 0.0 0.0 0.5 0.0 100.0 1175 (*) (*) (*) (*) (*) 100.0 7 34.8 0.6 0.1 0.0 11.2 100.0 1720 24.8 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.3 100.0 1725 14.8 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 1711 2.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.4 100.0 1720 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.4 0.0 100.0 1718 24.8 0.3 0.0 0.0 3.8 100.0 5157 1.1 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.2 100.0 3438 As shown in Table WS.6R, 73 percent of the household population in Roma settlements is using an unshared improved sanitation facility. In total, 77 percent of the population in urban areas use unshared improved toilets, while the figure is 61 percent within other areas. About 8 percent of household members use an improved toilet facility that is shared with other households, while this is true for 4 percent of those using unimproved sanitation facilities (Figure WS.2R). The situation is the worst for members of the poorest wealth quintile where 12 percent of those who use improved sanitation facilities share sanitation facilities with persons from other households and the percentage is the same for those who use unimproved sanitation facilities. 48 Those indicating bottled water as the main source of drinking water are distributed according to the water source used for other purposes such as cooking and handwashing. Table WS.7R presents the percentages of the household population in Roma Settlements by drinking water and sanitation ladders. The table also shows the percentage of household members using improved sources of drinking water48 and sanitary means of excreta disposal. In Roma settlements, 98 percent of the population use improved drinking water, 73 percent use improved sanitation and 72 percent use both improved drinking water and improved sanitation. 94 Serbia Multiple Indicator Cluster Survey 2014 and Serbia Roma Settlements Multiple Indicator Cluster Survey 201494 Serbia Multiple Indicator Cluster Survey 2014 and Serbia Roma Settlements Multiple Indicator Cluster Survey 2014 Table WS.6R: Use and sharing of sanitation facilities 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, Serbia Roma Settlements, 2014   Users of improved sanitation facilities Users Not shared1 Public facility Shared by Missing/DK Not shared Public facility5 households or less More than 5 households Total 72.9 0.2 7.3 0.4 0.2 12.1 0.1 Area  Urban 77.0 0.1 6.8 0.5 0.1 10.2 0.1 Other 61.3 0.4 8.8 0.3 0.4 17.3 0.2 Education of household head  None 65.5 0.2 6.7 1.8 0.4 13.2 0.0 Primary 72.4 0.2 7.4 0.2 0.1 13.2 0.1 Secondary or higher 83.9 0.3 7.6 0.0 0.0 5.1 0.4 Missing/DK (*) (*) (*) (*) (*) (*) (*) Wealth index quintile  Poorest 40.1 0.2 11.1 1.1 0.3 23.6 0.5 Second 60.9 0.3 12.0 0.3 0.2 18.8 0.0 Middle 76.5 0.5 6.3 0.6 0.0 12.8 0.0 Fourth 90.5 0.0 5.6 0.0 0.2 3.2 0.0 Richest 96.5 0.0 1.7 0.0 0.0 1.8 0.0 Wealth index  Poorest 60 percent 59.1 0.3 9.8 0.7 0.2 18.4 0.2 Richest 40 percent 93.5 0.0 3.6 0.0 0.1 2.5 0.0 1 MICS indicator 4.3; MDG indicator 7.9 — Use of improved sanitation (*) Figures that are based on less than 25 unweighted cases Table WS.7R: Drinking water and sanitation ladders Percentage of household population by drinking water and sanitation ladders, Serbia Roma Settlements, 2014   Percentage of household population using: Improved drinking water1,a Unimproved drinking water Total Improved sanitation2 Unimproved sanitation Piped into dwelling, plot or yard Other improved Shared improved facilities Unimproved facilities Open defecation Total 86.4 11.4 2.3 100.0 72.9 8.1 16.7 2.4 Area  Urban 93.7 6.0 0.3 100.0 77.0 7.5 14.1 1.4 Other 65.8 26.4 7.8 100.0 61.3 9.8 23.7 5.2 Education of household head  None 74.8 20.8 4.4 100.0 65.5 9.1 20.2 5.2 Primary 87.9 10.1 2.0 100.0 72.4 7.9 17.5 2.2 Secondary or higher 91.6 7.2 1.2 100.0 83.9 7.9 8.2 0.0 Missing/DK (*) (*) (*) 100.0 (*) (*) (*) (*) Wealth index quintile  Poorest 60.7 31.7 7.6 100.0 40.1 12.7 36.0 11.2 Second 87.1 10.8 2.1 100.0 60.9 12.9 26.0 0.3 Middle 90.7 8.1 1.2 100.0 76.5 7.4 16.1 0.0 Fourth 96.5 3.0 0.5 100.0 90.5 5.8 3.3 0.4 Richest 96.9 3.1 0.0 100.0 96.5 1.7 1.8 0.0 Wealth index   Poorest 60 percent 79.5 16.9 3.6 100.0 59.1 11.0 26.0 3.8 Richest 40 percent 96.7 3.1 0.3 100.0 93.5 3.7 2.6 0.2 Monitoring the situation of children and women 95Monitoring the situation of children and women 95 of unimproved sanitation facilities Open defecation (no facility) Total Number of household members Shared by Missing/DK 5 households or less More than 5 households 4.1 0.3 0.1 2.4 100.0 8595 3.6 0.3 0.0 1.4 100.0 6337 5.4 0.4 0.4 5.2 100.0 2259 6.1 0.3 0.5 5.2 100.0 1344 3.9 0.3 0.0 2.2 100.0 6070 2.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 1175 (*) (*) (*) (*) 100.0 7 11.3 0.4 0.1 11.2 100.0 1720 5.8 1.1 0.4 0.3 100.0 1725 3.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 1711 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.4 100.0 1720 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 1718 6.8 0.5 0.2 3.8 100.0 5157 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 100.0 3438 Number of household membersTotal Improved drinking water sources and improved sanitation 100.0 72.4 8595 100.0 77.0 6337 100.0 59.6 2259 100.0 64.9 1344 100.0 72.0 6070 100.0 83.0 1175 100.0 (*) 7 100.0 39.4 1720 100.0 59.8 1725 100.0 76.3 1711 100.0 90.2 1720 100.0 96.5 1718 100.0 58.5 5157 100.0 93.4 3438 1 MICS indicator 4.1; MDG indicator 7.8 — Use of improved drinking water sources 2 MICS indicator 4.3; MDG indicator 7.9 — Use of improved sanitation a Those indicating bottled water as the main source of drinking water are distributed according to the water source used for other purposes such as cooking and handwashing. (*) Figures that are based on less than 25 unweighted cases 96 Serbia Multiple Indicator Cluster Survey 2014 and Serbia Roma Settlements Multiple Indicator Cluster Survey 201496 Serbia Multiple Indicator Cluster Survey 2014 and Serbia Roma Settlements Multiple Indicator Cluster Survey 2014 There is a positive correlation between use of improved drinking water sources and improved sanitation with socioeconomic status. 97 percent of household members from the richest wealth quintile use improved drinking water sources and improved sanitation while only 39 percent of household members from the poorest wealth quintile do (Figure WS.3R). Figure WS.3R: Percentages of household members using improved drinking water sources and improved sanitation, by wealth, Serbia Roma Settlements, 2014 39 60 76 90 97 72 0 20 40 60 80 100 Poorest Second Middle Fourth Richest Serbia Roma Settlements Pe rc en t Wealth Index Quintiles Monitoring the situation of children and women 97 VIIIVIII REPRODUCTIVE REPRODUCTIVE HEALTHHEALTH Fertility Measures of current fertility are presented in Table RH.1 for the one year period preceding the survey. In MICS, age specific and total fertility rates are calculated by using information on the date of last birth of each woman and are based on the one-year period (1-12 months) preceding the survey. Rates are underestimated by a very small margin due to absence of information on multiple births (twins, triplets, etc.) and on women who may have had multiple deliveries during the one year period preceding the survey. The total fertility rate (TFR) is calculated by summing the age-specific fertility rates calculated for each of the 5-year age groups of women, from age 15 through age 49. The total fertility rate (TFR) is a synthetic measure that denotes the number of live births a woman would have if she were subject to the current age-specific fertility rates throughout her reproductive years (15-49 years). The general fertility rate (GFR) is the number of live births occurring during the specified period per 1000 women age 15-49. The crude birth rate (CBR) is the number of live births per 1000 population during the specified period. Table RH.1: Fertility rates Adolescent birth rate, age-specific and total fertility rates, the general fertility rate, and the crude birth rate for the one-year period preceding the survey, by area, Serbia, 2014   Urban Other Total Age  15-191 (22) (22) 22 20-24 40 (63) 48 25-29 121 155 134 30-34 84 77 81 35-39 39 17 30 40-44 7 (7) 7 45-49 (0) (0) 0 TFRa (1.6) (1.7) 1.6 GFRb 45.3 46.2 45.7 CBRc 10.3 9.8 10.1 1 MICS indicator 5.1; MDG indicator 5.4 — Adolescent birth rate a TFR: Total fertility rate expressed per woman age 15-49 b GFR: General fertility rate expressed per 1000 women age 15-49 c CBR: Crude birth rate expressed per 1000 population  ( ) Figures that are based on 125-249 unweighted person-years of exposure Table RH.1 shows current fertility in Serbia at the national level and by urban-other area. The TFR for the one year preceding the 2014 Serbia MICS survey is 1.6 births per woman. There is no notable difference in fertility when urban and other areas are compared (1.6 and 1.7 births, respectively)49. 49 The results for urban and other areas are based on 125-249 unweighted person-years of exposure and should be treated with caution. 98 Serbia Multiple Indicator Cluster Survey 2014 and Serbia Roma Settlements Multiple Indicator Cluster Survey 2014 Figure RH.1: Age-specific fertility rates by area, Serbia, 2014 Rates refer to the one year period preceding the survey Note: Figures for age group 15-19, 20-24 (only other areas), 40-44 (only other areas) and 45-49 are based on 125-249 unweighted person-years of exposure Urban-other differences in fertility are observed for women of different age groups (Figure RH.1). While for the 20-24 age group, the age-specific fertility rate is higher in other areas (155 vs.121 births per 1000 women), for the 35-39 age group it is higher in urban areas (39 vs. 17 births per 1000 women). Fertility is low among adolescents, increases to a peak of 134 births per 1000 among women age 25-29, and declines thereafter. Table RH.1 also shows adolescent birth rates and total fertility rates. The adolescent birth rate (age-specific fertility rate for women age 15-19) is defined as the number of births to women age 15-19 years during the one year period preceding the survey, divided by the average number of women age 15-19 (number of women-years lived between ages 15 through 19, inclusive) during the same period, expressed per 1000 women. The adolescent birth rate in Serbia is 22 per 1000 women. Sexual activity and childbearing early in life carry significant risks for young people around the world. Table RH.2 presents some early childbearing indicators for women age 15-19 and 20-24 while Table RH.3 presents the trends for early childbearing. 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 15-19 20-24 25-29 30-34 35-39 40-44 45-49 Pe r 1 00 0 Age Urban Other Total Monitoring the situation of children and women 99 Table RH.2: Early childbearing Percentage of women age 15-19 years who have had a live birth, are pregnant with the first child, have begun childbearing, and who have had a live birth before age 15, and percentage of women age 20-24 years who have had a live birth before age 18, Serbia, 2014 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 20-24Have had a live birth Are pregnant with first child Have begun childbearing Have had a live birth before age 15 Total 2.7 0.0 2.8 0.1 515 1.4 562 Region  Belgrade 0.3 0.0 0.3 0.0 93 0.2 138 Vojvodina 2.5 0.2 2.7 0.6 132 2.7 141 Sumadija and Western Serbia 1.1 0.0 1.1 0.0 143 1.4 187 Southern and Eastern Serbia 6.0 0.0 6.0 0.0 146 1.0 96 Area  Urban 2.3 0.1 2.3 0.0 301 1.1 353 Other 3.3 0.0 3.3 0.4 214 1.8 209 Education  None (*) (*) (*) (*) 0 (*) 4 Primary (16.3) (1.1) (17.4) (3.4) 22 (5.7) 34 Secondary 2.3 0.0 2.3 0.0 442 1.6 179 Higher (0.0) (0.0) (0.0) (0.0) 50 0.0 345 Wealth index quintile  Poorest 5.7 0.4 6.1 1.3 58 6.0 79 Second 3.5 0.0 3.5 0.0 136 1.3 107 Middle 1.1 0.0 1.1 0.0 104 0.8 146 Fourth 4.6 0.0 4.6 0.0 98 0.3 120 Richest 0.2 0.0 0.2 0.0 119 0.0 110 Ethnicity of household head  Serbian 2.3 0.0 2.3 0.1 450 0.8 486 Hungarian (*) (*) (*) (*) 27 (*) 11 Bosnian (*) (*) (*) (*) 7 (*) 15 Roma (*) (*) (*) (*) 14 (16.4) 20 Other (*) (*) (*) (*) 13 (1.3) 23 Does not want to declare (*) (*) (*) (*) 3 (*) 6 Missing/DK (*) (*) (*) (*) 1 - - 1 MICS indicator 5.2 — Early childbearing ( ) Figures that are based on 25-49 unweighted cases (*) Figures that are based on less than 25 unweighted cases “-” denotes 0 unweighted cases in that cell 100 Serbia Multiple Indicator Cluster Survey 2014 and Serbia Roma Settlements Multiple Indicator Cluster Survey 2014 Table RH.3: Trends in early childbearing Percentage of women who have had a live birth, by age 15 and 18, by area and age group, Serbia, 2014   Urban Other All   Percentage of women with a live birth before age 15 Number of women age 15-49 years Percentage of women with a live birth before age 18 Number of women age 20-49 years Percentage of women with a live birth before age 15 Number of women age 15-49 years Percentage of women with a live birth before age 18 Number of women age 20-49 years Percentage of women with a live birth before age 15 Number of women age 15-49 years Percentage of women with a live birth before age 18 Number of women age 20-49 years Total 0.1 2870 2.7 2569 0.6 1843 5.9 1629 0.3 4713 4.0 4198 Age  15-19 0.0 301 na na 0.4 214 na na 0.1 515 na na 20-24 0.0 353 1.1 353 0.3 209 1.8 209 0.1 562 1.4 562 25-29 0.0 407 0.3 407 0.1 260 5.3 260 0.0 667 2.3 667 30-34 0.3 455 3.4 455 1.7 249 8.1 249 0.8 704 5.0 704 35-39 0.0 458 3.6 458 0.5 299 5.3 299 0.2 758 4.3 758 40-44 0.4 466 2.2 466 0.1 279 6.2 279 0.3 745 3.7 745 45-49 0.0 430 5.2 430 1.0 333 7.7 333 0.4 763 6.3 763 na: not applicable As shown in Table RH.2, 3 percent of women age 15-19 have already had a live birth having thus begun childbearing. Almost no women age 15-19 have had a live birth before the age of 15. Furthermore, only 1 percent of women aged 20-24 have had a live birth before the age of 18. The highest proportion of women aged 15-19 that have begun childbearing is in Southern and Eastern Serbia (6 percent). Early childbearing is more frequent among women that live in the poorest households. Table RH.3 presents the trends in early childbearing. There is no clear pattern in early childbearing trends over time. Monitoring the situation of children and women 101Monitoring the situation of children and women 101 Fertility in Roma Settlements Table RH.1R shows current fertility in Roma settlements by urban-other area. The TFR for the one year preceding the 2014 Serbia Roma Settlements MICS survey is 3.1 births per woman50. Table RH.1R also shows adolescent birth rates and total fertility rates in Roma settlements. The adolescent birth rate (age- specific fertility rate for women age 15-19) is defined as the number of births to women age 15-19 years during the one year period preceding the survey, divided by the average number of women age 15-19 (number of women-years lived between ages 15 through 19, inclusive) during the same period, expressed per 1000 women. The adolescent birth rate in Roma settlements in Serbia is 157. Table RH.1R: Fertility rates Adolescent birth rate, age-specific and total fertility rates, the general fertility rate, and the crude birth rate for the one-year period preceding the survey, by area, Serbia Roma Settlements, 2014   Urban Other Total Age  15-191 160 (*) 157 20-24 193 (250) 207 25-29 (161) (*) 141 30-34 (66) (*) (60) 35-39 (45) (*) (44) 40-44 (0) (*) (15) 45-49 (*) (*) (0) TFRa (*) (*) (3.1) GFRb 101.6 103.0 102.0 CBRc 25.0 24.7 24.9 1 MICS indicator 5.1; MDG indicator 5.4 — Adolescent birth rate a TFR: Total fertility rate expressed per woman age 15-49 b GFR: General fertility rate expressed per 1000 women age 15-49 c CBR: Crude birth rate expressed per 1000 population ( ) Figures that are based on 125-249 unweighted person-years of exposure  (*) Figures that are based on less than 125 unweighted person-years of exposure Sexual activity and childbearing early in life carry significant risks for young people all around the world. Table RH.2R presents some early childbearing indicators for women age 15-19 and 20-24 while Table RH.3R presents the trends for early childbearing in Roma settlements. As shown in the Table RH.2R, almost one in four woman aged 15-19 years has already had a live birth while 9 percent are pregnant with their first child. 4 percent have had a live birth before age 15. Furthermore, 38 percent of women aged 20-24 have had a live birth before the age of 18. As expected, the percentage of women aged 20-24 who have had a live birth before age 18 is lower for women with secondary or higher education (8 percent) compared to women with primary (42 percent) or no education (47 percent). 50 The TFR is based on 125-249 unweighted person-years of exposure and should be treated with caution. 102 Serbia Multiple Indicator Cluster Survey 2014 and Serbia Roma Settlements Multiple Indicator Cluster Survey 2014102 Serbia Multiple Indicator Cluster Survey 2014 and Serbia Roma Settlements Multiple Indicator Cluster Survey 2014 Table RH.2R: Early childbearing Percentage of women age 15-19 years who have had a live birth, are pregnant with the first child, have begun childbearing, and who have had a live birth before age 15, and percentage of women age 20-24 years who have had a live birth before age 18, Serbia Roma Settlements, 2014 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 Total 23.8 9.0 32.8 3.7 382 38.3 377 Area  Urban 24.1 8.7 32.8 3.3 286 40.5 282 Other 22.9 9.9 32.8 5.1 96 31.8 95 Education  None (29.0) (3.7) (32.8) (3.7) 31 46.8 72 Primary 29.0 10.9 40.0 4.6 272 42.1 253 Secondary or higher 3.6 4.5 8.1 0.5 79 8.0 52 Wealth index quintile  Poorest 30.4 1.7 32.0 7.9 88 57.3 78 Second 25.0 6.2 31.2 4.6 72 35.5 76 Middle 20.0 11.3 31.3 1.8 64 27.3 70 Fourth 19.6 20.0 39.6 2.6 61 35.1 79 Richest 22.1 9.3 31.4 1.3 97 35.0 74 Wealth index   Poorest 60 percent 25.7 5.9 31.5 5.1 224 40.6 224 Richest 40 percent 21.1 13.4 34.6 1.8 158 35.0 153 1 MICS indicator 5.2 — Early childbearing ( ) Figures that are based on 25-49 unweighted cases Table RH.3R presents the trends in early childbearing in Roma settlements. There are no obvious changes in child bearing trends over time. Table RH.3R: Trends in early childbearing Percentage of women who have had a live birth, by age 15 and 18, by area and age group, Serbia Roma Settlements, 2014 Urban Other All Percentage of women with a live birth before age 15 Number of women age 15-49 years Percentage of women with a live birth before age 18 Number of women age 20-49 years Percentage of women with a live birth before age 15 Number of women age 15-49 years Percentage of women with a live birth before age 18 Number of women age 20-49 years Percentage of women with a live birth before age 15 Number of women age 15-49 years Percentage of women with a live birth before age 18 Number of women age 20-49 years Total 4.7 1544 38.2 1258 6.0 537 38.1 441 5.1 2081 38.1 1699 Age  15-19 3.3 286 na na 5.1 96 na na 3.7 382 na na 20-24 5.1 282 40.5 282 3.9 95 31.8 95 4.8 377 38.3 377 25-29 5.0 205 39.3 205 7.5 80 33.0 80 5.7 284 37.5 284 30-34 2.7 210 31.3 210 4.2 77 42.6 77 3.1 288 34.3 288 35-39 7.9 212 40.5 212 8.6 55 53.6 55 8.1 267 43.2 267 40-44 5.1 181 41.7 181 6.2 73 40.9 73 5.4 254 41.5 254 45-49 4.2 168 34.9 168 8.7 61 31.1 61 5.4 229 33.9 229 na: not applicable Monitoring the situation of children and women 103 Contraception Appropriate family planning is important to the health of women and children by: 1) preventing pregnancies that are too early or too late; 2) extending the period between births; and 3) limiting the total number of children. Access by all couples to information and services to prevent pregnancies that are too early, too closely spaced, too late or too many is critical. Table RH.3A shows the proportions of all women age 15-49 and women age 15-49 currently married or in union, who have heard of any contraceptive method, by specific method. The data show that almost all women have heard of any contraceptive method and the mean number of methods known by women is 11 (of 14 methods). While the majority are familiar with the most common traditional methods of contraception (more than 95 percent are familiar with each method), there are modern methods they are less familiar with (40 percent for implants, 56 percent for injectables and 69 percent for female condom). Table RH.3A: Knowledge of specific contraceptive methods Percentage of all women age 15-49 and percentage of women age 15-49 currently married who have heard of any contraceptive method, by specific method, Serbia, 2014   All Currently married or in union Any method 99.8 100.0 Any modern methoda 99.8 99.9 Female sterilization 89.4 90.2 Male sterilization 77.4 76.1 Pill 98.5 98.8 IUD 96.0 98.1 Injectables 56.2 56.2 Implants 40.1 38.8 Male condom 99.6 99.6 Female condom 68.7 65.7 Diaphragm 78.6 78.2 Foam/jelly 65.4 65.5 Emergency contraception 90.4 89.2 Any traditional method 98.4 99.1 Rhythm 96.6 96.9 Withdrawal 97.1 98.5 Other 2.5 2.6 Mean number of methods known by women 10.5 10.5 Number of women 4713 2846 a The lactational amenorrhea method (LAM) was not included in the 2014 Serbia MICS because there is no official LAM programme in the country. Table RH.3B provides information on knowledge of contraceptive methods for women age 15-49 currently married or in union, by background characteristics. No major differences are observed among different background characteristics. 104 Serbia Multiple Indicator Cluster Survey 2014 and Serbia Roma Settlements Multiple Indicator Cluster Survey 2014 Table RH.3B: Knowledge of contraceptive methods Percentage of women age 15-49 currently married or in union who have heard of at least one contraceptive method and who have heard of at least one modern method, by background characteristics, Serbia, 2014   Any method Any modern methoda Number of women age 15-49 currently married or in union Total 100.0 99.9 2846 Region  Belgrade 100.0 100.0 601 Vojvodina 99.9 99.9 765 Sumadija and Western Serbia 100.0 99.9 800 Southern and Eastern Serbia 99.9 99.8 681 Area  Urban 100.0 100.0 1651 Other 99.9 99.8 1195 Age  15-19 (100.0) (100.0) 16 20-24 100.0 100.0 105 25-29 99.8 99.8 377 30-34 100.0 99.8 524 35-39 100.0 100.0 608 40-44 100.0 100.0 613 45-49 100.0 99.9 602 Education  None (96.8) (96.8) 15 Primary 99.9 99.5 383 Secondary 100.0 100.0 1713 Higher 99.9 99.9 735 Wealth index quintile  Poorest 99.8 99.5 379 Second 100.0 99.9 561 Middle 100.0 100.0 596 Fourth 99.9 99.9 628 Richest 100.0 100.0 681 Ethnicity of household head  Serbian 100.0 100.0 2463 Hungarian 100.0 100.0 114 Bosnian 100.0 99.2 53 Roma 99.3 97.9 73 Other 99.8 99.8 107 Does not want to declare (100.0) (100.0) 33 Missing/DK (*) (*) 3 a Female sterilization, male sterilization, pill, IUD, injectables, implants, male condom, female condom, emergency contraception, and other modern methods. ( ) Figures that are based on 25-49 unweighted cases  (*) Figures that are based on less than 25 unweighted cases    Percent of women No method Female sterilization Male sterilization IUD Injectables Total 41.6 0.4 0.0 2.2 0.0 Region  Belgrade 55.5 0.0 0.0 1.9 0.0 Vojvodina 42.6 1.0 0.0 3.3 0.0 Sumadija and Western Serbia 40.8 0.2 0.0 1.0 0.0 Southern and Eastern Serbia 29.2 0.3 0.0 2.6 0.0 Area  Urban 41.9 0.5 0.0 2.4 0.0 Other 41.1 0.2 0.0 1.9 0.0 Age  15-19 (48.4) (0.0) (0.0) (0.0) (0.0) 20-24 52.9 0.0 0.0 5.0 0.0 25-29 46.1 0.0 0.0 0.9 0.0 30-34 40.3 0.2 0.0 1.8 0.0 35-39 34.5 0.3 0.0 2.3 0.0 40-44 38.1 0.8 0.0 3.0 0.0 45-49 48.5 0.6 0.0 2.0 0.0 Number of living children  0 84.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1 43.9 0.0 0.0 1.1 0.0 2 33.3 0.1 0.0 3.0 0.0 3 39.6 1.6 0.0 2.5 0.0 4+ 32.8 4.8 0.0 3.6 0.0 Education  None (53.8) (1.8) (0.0) (2.2) (0.0) Primary 36.6 1.1 0.0 3.5 0.0 Secondary 42.2 0.3 0.0 2.4 0.0 Higher 42.6 0.3 0.0 1.1 0.0 Wealth index quintile  Poorest 42.7 0.9 0.0 2.8 0.0 Second 39.9 0.7 0.0 1.5 0.0 Middle 42.9 0.1 0.0 0.9 0.0 Fourth 38.3 0.5 0.0 3.2 0.0 Richest 44.3 0.1 0.0 2.6 0.0 Ethnicity of household head  Serbian 42.8 0.2 0.0 2.0 0.0 Hungarian 20.4 2.0 0.0 5.8 0.0 Bosnian 27.3 1.5 0.0 1.1 0.0 Roma 50.3 5.2 0.0 0.9 0.0 Other 40.4 0.2 0.0 4.4 0.0 Does not want to declare (32.0) (0.0) (0.0) (0.0) (0.0) Missing/DK (*) (*) (*) (*) (*) 1 MICS indicator 5.3; MDG indicator 5.3 — Contraceptive prevalence rate ( ) 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 105 Table RH.4: Use of contraception Percentage of women age 15-49 years currently married or in union who are using (or whose partner is using) a contraceptive method, Serbia, 2014 currently married or in union who are using (or whose partner is using): Any modern method Any tradi- tional method Any method1 Number of women age 15-49 years currently married or in union Implants Pill Male condom Female condom Diaphragm /Foam/ Jelly Periodic abstinence With- drawal Other Missing 0.0 3.3 12.4 0.1 0.0 4.9 35.0 0.1 0.0 18.4 40.0 58.4 2846 0.0 4.8 18.9 0.0 0.0 3.9 14.5 0.5 0.0 25.6 18.9 44.5 601 0.0 4.4 13.0 0.1 0.0 3.3 32.3 0.0 0.0 21.8 35.6 57.4 765 0.0 2.5 10.2 0.0 0.0 8.1 37.0 0.0 0.0 14.1 45.1 59.2 800 0.0 1.6 8.7 0.2 0.0 3.9 53.6 0.0 0.0 13.3 57.5 70.8 681 0.0 4.0 14.4 0.1 0.0 4.9 31.6 0.2 0.0 21.4 36.6 58.1 1651 0.0 2.3 9.7 0.0 0.0 5.0 39.6 0.0 0.0 14.2 44.6 58.9 1195 (0.0) (0.0) (1.6) (0.0) (0.0) (0.0) (50.0) (0.0) (0.0) (1.6) (50.0) (51.6) 16 0.0 2.5 10.9 0.0 0.0 1.4 27.4 0.0 0.0 18.3 28.8 47.1 105 0.0 4.7 13.5 0.1 0.0 4.2 30.5 0.1 0.0 19.2 34.7 53.9 377 0.0 4.3 15.1 0.1 0.1 2.8 35.3 0.0 0.0 21.5 38.1 59.7 524 0.0 5.1 13.8 0.2 0.0 7.9 35.9 0.0 0.0 21.8 43.8 65.5 608 0.0 1.8 13.8 0.0 0.0 3.7 38.9 0.0 0.0 19.4 42.6 61.9 613 0.0 1.6 7.3 0.0 0.0 6.2 33.5 0.4 0.0 11.4 40.1 51.5 602 0.0 4.0 4.7 0.0 0.0 1.0 5.8 0.0 0.0 8.7 6.8 15.5 277 0.0 4.6 16.5 0.2 0.0 4.2 29.4 0.0 0.0 22.5 33.6 56.1 677 0.0 2.8 12.9 0.0 0.0 6.6 41.1 0.2 0.0 18.8 47.8 66.7 1451 0.0 2.4 10.8 0.0 0.1 2.7 40.2 0.0 0.0 17.4 43.0 60.4 361 0.0 2.9 2.8 0.3 0.0 4.1 48.6 0.0 0.0 14.5 52.7 67.2 81 (0.0) (11.9) (1.8) (0.0) (0.0) (0.0) (28.6) (0.0) (0.0) (17.6) (28.6) (46.2) 15 0.0 2.2 3.0 0.1 0.0 5.9 47.6 0.0 0.0 9.8 53.5 63.4 383 0.0 2.5 11.1 0.1 0.0 4.9 36.5 0.0 0.0 16.4 41.4 57.8 1713 0.0 5.6 20.5 0.1 0.0 4.6 24.9 0.4 0.0 27.6 29.8 57.4 735 0.0 1.7 4.3 0.0 0.0 3.2 44.4 0.0 0.0 9.7 47.6 57.3 379 0.0 2.0 9.6 0.1 0.0 3.4 42.8 0.0 0.0 13.9 46.2 60.1 561 0.0 2.8 10.2 0.0 0.0 6.4 36.7 0.0 0.0 14.0 43.1 57.1 596 0.0 4.6 16.3 0.0 0.0 6.7 30.4 0.0 0.0 24.6 37.1 61.7 628 0.0 4.5 17.7 0.3 0.1 4.2 25.9 0.4 0.0 25.3 30.5 55.7 681 0.0 2.7 12.8 0.1 0.0 5.3 34.0 0.1 0.0 17.7 39.4 57.2 2463 0.0 9.4 13.2 0.2 0.0 6.9 42.0 0.0 0.0 30.7 49.0 79.6 114 0.0 1.0 1.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 67.6 0.0 0.4 4.7 67.6 72.7 53 0.0 4.1 0.5 0.0 0.0 0.3 38.7 0.0 0.0 10.8 39.0 49.7 73 0.0 3.6 13.6 0.0 0.0 1.1 36.7 0.0 0.0 21.8 37.8 59.6 107 (0.0) (27.7) (21.6) (1.0) (0.0) (0.0) (17.6) (0.0) (0.0) (50.3) (17.6) (68.0) 33 (*) (*) (*) (*) (*) (*) (*) (*) (*) (*) (*) (*) 3 106 Serbia Multiple Indicator Cluster Survey 2014 and Serbia Roma Settlements Multiple Indicator Cluster Survey 2014 Current use of contraception was reported by 58 percent of women currently married or in union51 (Table RH.4). Traditional methods are predominant and are used by 40 percent of women, while modern methods are used by 18 percent of women. The most popular method is withdrawal, which is used by one in three married women in Serbia (35 percent). The next most popular method is the male condom, which is used by 12 percent of married women. Between 2 percent and 5 percent of married women reported the use of the IUD, pill and periodic abstinence. Other methods of contraception (including female sterilization and the female condom) are used by less than 1 percent of women. Contraceptive prevalence ranges from 45 percent in the Belgrade region to 71 percent in Southern and Eastern Serbia without notable differences per area of residence (Figure RH.2). Young women age 20-24 are less likely to use any method of contraception (47 percent) than women from older age groups. Contraceptive prevalence in general is similar for women of different education levels. However, the main difference observed relate to the method of contraception used. Prevalence of any modern method rises with the level of education; only 9 percent of women with primary education use any modern method compared with 28 percent of women with higher education. Usage of modern methods increases with wealth status. Only one in ten women living in the poorest households use modern methods, compared to richest households where every forth woman use modern methods. Figure RH.2: Differentials in contraceptive use, Serbia, 2014 Note: Woman’s education category “None” is based on 25-49 unweighted cases Table RH.4A presents the reasons for never using any methods to avoid or delay a pregnancy. Overall, 24 percent of all women age 15-49 reported that they never used any method to avoid or delay a pregnancy. Among them, the highest percentage is among women that have not had sex before (42 percent). 31 percent of women wanted to get pregnant, while 24 percent never used any method to avoid or delay pregnancy for some other reason. For 2 percent of women the reasons included lack of knowledge or financial means. 51 All references to “married women” in this chapter include women in marital union as well. 45 57 59 71 58 59 (46) 63 58 57 58 Regions Belgrade Vojvodina Sumadija and Western Serbia Southern and Eastern Serbia Area Urban Other Woman's Education None Primary Secondary Higher Serbia Percent Monitoring the situation of children and women 107 Table RH.4A: Reasons for never using any methods of contraception to avoid or delay pregnancy Percentage of women age 15-49 years that have never used any contraceptive method, and percent distribution by reasons for never using contraception, Serbia, 2014 Percent of women that never used any method of contracep- tion1 Number of women age 15-49 years Reasons for never using methods to avoid or delay pregnancy Number of women age 15-49 years who never used any method Have not had sex before Wanted to get pregnant Husband/ partner was against Insufficient means (too expensive) Lack of knowl- edge2 Other Missing/DK Total Total 24.2 4713 41.6 31.2 0.7 1.2 0.9 24.2 0.2 100.0 1140 Region  Belgrade 23.3 1105 31.5 41.7 0.1 1.2 0.4 24.9 0.2 100.0 258 Vojvodina 26.7 1238 32.9 32.0 0.6 1.3 1.3 31.9 0.0 100.0 331 Sumadija and Western Serbia 23.8 1293 49.0 26.9 1.3 1.9 1.8 18.6 0.6 100.0 308 Southern and Eastern Serbia 22.6 1077 54.5 24.5 0.7 0.0 0.0 20.1 0.2 100.0 244 Area  Urban 21.6 2870 43.9 32.0 0.7 0.8 1.0 21.4 0.1 100.0 619 Other 28.3 1843 38.7 30.3 0.7 1.6 0.8 27.6 0.4 100.0 522 Age  15-19 73.6 515 94.7 2.4 0.0 0.1 1.5 1.2 0.0 100.0 379 20-24 26.5 562 57.7 15.2 0.1 1.3 0.2 25.5 0.0 100.0 149 25-29 16.8 667 13.8 61.2 0.0 0.0 0.9 23.8 0.3 100.0 112 30-34 17.2 704 3.5 66.0 1.4 2.6 0.7 25.8 0.0 100.0 121 35-39 16.3 758 2.5 54.6 0.2 5.0 1.0 36.5 0.1 100.0 123 40-44 15.0 745 2.1 48.6 0.3 0.0 0.2 48.5 0.5 100.0 112 45-49 18.9 763 2.8 37.3 3.8 1.2 1.1 52.9 1.1 100.0 144 Woman’s education  None (33.9) 20 (*) (*) (*) (*) (*) (*) (*) 100.0 7 Primary 24.1 473 14.5 43.2 0.3 4.7 4.6 31.3 1.4 100.0 114 Secondary 29.2 2604 46.8 29.6 1.0 1.0 0.4 21.2 0.0 100.0 761 Higher 16.0 1616 38.5 30.9 0.1 0.0 0.7 29.4 0.3 100.0 259 Wealth index quintiles  Poorest 27.8 600 40.3 30.4 1.5 2.6 3.5 20.6 1.1 100.0 167 Second 30.3 954 39.9 29.6 1.2 2.4 1.0 25.9 0.0 100.0 289 Middle 24.3 1025 43.8 25.6 0.0 0.0 0.1 30.5 0.0 100.0 249 Fourth 21.2 1035 35.9 40.9 0.9 0.9 0.0 21.0 0.4 100.0 220 Richest 19.7 1099 47.9 30.6 0.0 0.0 0.9 20.7 0.0 100.0 217 Ethnicity of household head  Serbian 24.8 4131 41.9 31.0 0.6 1.1 0.7 24.3 0.2 100.0 1023 Hungarian 14.9 172 (59.1) (13.1) (6.5) (0.0) (0.0) (21.4) (0.0) 100.0 26 Bosnian 17.7 80 (*) (*) (*) (*) (*) (*) (*) 100.0 14 Roma 30.2 102 (23.1) (49.9) (0.0) (0.0) (8.9) (18.1) (0.0) 100.0 31 Other 23.8 170 (24.0) (43.0) (0.0) (5.1) (1.2) (26.2) (0.5) 100.0 41 Does not want to declare (8.4) 54 (*) (*) (*) (*) (*) (*) (*) 100.0 5 Missing/DK (*) 4 (*) (*) (*) (*) (*) (*) (*) 100.0 1 1 Survey-specific indicator — Never used any method of contraception 2 Survey-specific indicator — Never used contraception because uninformed ( ) Figures that are based on 25-49 unweighted cases  (*) Figures that are based on less than 25 unweighted cases 108 Serbia Multiple Indicator Cluster Survey 2014 and Serbia Roma Settlements Multiple Indicator Cluster Survey 2014108 Serbia Multiple Indicator Cluster Survey 2014 and Serbia Roma Settlements Multiple Indicator Cluster Survey 2014 Contraception in Roma Settlements Table RH.3A.R shows the proportions of all women age 15-49 and women age 15-49 currently married or in union, who have heard of any contraceptive method, by specific method. The data show that 95 percent of all women in Roma settlements have heard of any contraceptive method, but there are differences in knowledge of various types of contraception methods. The three modern methods that a higher percentage of women currently married or in union are familiar with include the pill (79 percent), IUD (80 percent) and male condom (89 percent) while for the rest their level of knowledge is much lower. As for traditional methods, the majority (93 percent) of women currently married or in union in Roma settlements are familiar with withdrawal while a lower percentage is familiar with the rhythm method (59 percent). The mean number of methods known by women currently married or in union in Roma settlements is 6 (of 14 methods). Table RH.3A.R: Knowledge of specific contraceptive methods Percentage of all women age 15-49 and percentage of women age 15-49 currently married or in union who have heard of any contraceptive method, by specific method, Serbia Roma Settlements, 2014   All Currently married or in union Any method 95.1 97.6 Any modern methoda 92.4 94.9 Female sterilization 46.0 49.1 Male sterilization 25.2 26.5 Pill 77.4 79.1 IUD 74.9 79.7 Injectables 37.9 39.5 Implants 19.8 20.4 Male condom 86.6 88.9 Female condom 24.3 25.2 Diaphragm 21.5 22.2 Foam/jelly 15.7 16.1 Emergency contraception 30.6 30.4 Any traditional method 89.6 94.3 Rhythm 54.4 58.5 Withdrawal 88.0 92.6 Other 2.7 2.7 Mean number of methods known by women 5.9 6.2 Number of women 2081 1533 a The lactational amenorrhea method (LAM) was not included in the 2014 Serbia Roma Settlements MICS because there is no official LAM programme in the country. Table RH.3B.R provides information on the knowledge of contraceptive methods for women age 15-49 currently married or in union living in Roma settlements, by background characteristics. In total, there is almost no difference between the knowledge of modern methods and all methods. 12 percent of women with no education and 14 percent of women in the poorest households have not heard of any modern methods. Monitoring the situation of children and women 109Monitoring the situation of children and women 109 Table RH.3B.R: Knowledge of contraceptive methods Percentage of women age 15-49 currently married or in union who have heard of at least one contraceptive method and who have heard of at least one modern method, by background characteristics, Serbia Roma Settlements, 2014   Any method Any modern methoda Number of women age 15-49 currently married or in union Total 97.6 94.9 1533 Area Urban 97.9 95.7 1147 Other 96.9 92.4 386 Age 15-19 94.1 92.5 146 20-24 96.7 91.6 275 25-29 98.4 96.4 230 30-34 99.3 97.5 237 35-39 97.9 96.1 246 40-44 98.6 96.8 220 45-49 97.5 92.4 179 Education None 93.9 88.1 322 Primary 98.5 96.2 1064 Secondary or higher 99.8 99.8 147 Missing/DK (*) (*) 1 Wealth index quintile Poorest 92.1 85.7 260 Second 99.5 96.5 274 Middle 97.0 95.8 307 Fourth 98.6 97.8 334 Richest 99.9 96.7 358 Wealth index Poorest 60 percent 96.3 92.9 841 Richest 40 percent 99.3 97.2 692 a Female sterilization, male sterilization, pill, IUD, injectables, implants, male condom, female condom, emergency contraception, and other modern methods. (*) Figures that are based on less than 25 unweighted cases  Current use of contraception was reported by 61 percent of women currently married or in union52 from Roma settlements (Table RH.4R). Modern methods are used by only 7 percent, while traditional methods are used by every second woman (54 percent). The most popular method is withdrawal, which is used by half of all married women (52 percent). The next most popular method is the male condom, which accounts for 3 percent of married women. Between 1 percent and 2 percent of married women reported the use of the pill, IUD, female sterilization and periodic abstinence. The contraceptive prevalence of other methods (male sterilization, injectables, implants and vaginal methods) is negligible. 52 All references to “married women” in this chapter include women in union as well. 110 Serbia Multiple Indicator Cluster Survey 2014 and Serbia Roma Settlements Multiple Indicator Cluster Survey 2014110 Serbia Multiple Indicator Cluster Survey 2014 and Serbia Roma Settlements Multiple Indicator Cluster Survey 2014 Table RH.4R: Use of contraception Percentage of women age 15-49 years currently married or in union who are using (or whose partner is using) a contraceptive method, Serbia Roma Settlements, 2014 Percent of women currently married or in union who are using No method Female sterilization Male sterilization IUD Injectables Implants Pill Male condom Total 38.8 1.8 0.0 1.2 0.0 0.0 1.2 2.8 Area  Urban 39.1 2.0 0.1 1.1 0.0 0.0 1.0 3.2 Other 37.7 1.5 0.0 1.8 0.0 0.0 1.8 1.8 Age  15-19 70.0 0.0 0.0 0.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 3.3 20-24 47.0 1.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 3.9 2.8 25-29 36.2 0.6 0.0 1.2 0.0 0.0 0.1 5.1 30-34 29.8 0.0 0.0 2.1 0.0 0.0 1.2 1.3 35-39 30.5 0.8 0.0 3.1 0.0 0.0 0.6 2.9 40-44 29.6 8.4 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.8 0.6 45-49 38.3 1.2 0.4 0.5 0.0 0.0 0.6 4.1 Number of living children  0 97.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1 50.3 0.2 0.0 1.1 0.0 0.0 1.4 3.1 2 34.4 1.4 0.0 1.4 0.0 0.0 1.3 3.6 3 31.7 4.8 0.0 0.6 0.0 0.0 2.3 2.2 4+ 30.1 1.1 0.2 2.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 3.1 Education  None 41.0 1.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.3 1.8 Primary 39.4 2.1 0.1 1.4 0.0 0.0 1.4 2.5 Secondary or higher 29.2 0.0 0.0 2.8 0.0 0.0 1.5 7.6 Missing/DK (*) (*) (*) (*) (*) (*) (*) (*) Wealth index quintile  Poorest 44.7 2.5 0.0 1.2 0.0 0.0 2.9 1.7 Second 32.3 1.8 0.2 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.1 3.9 Middle 36.4 1.2 0.0 0.4 0.0 0.0 0.3 3.6 Fourth 43.9 1.7 0.0 2.5 0.0 0.0 1.3 1.6 Richest 36.6 2.1 0.0 1.6 0.0 0.0 1.3 3.3 Wealth index  Poorest 60 percent 37.6 1.8 0.1 0.6 0.0 0.0 1.1 3.1 Richest 40 percent 40.1 1.9 0.0 2.0 0.0 0.0 1.3 2.5 1 MICS indicator 5.3; MDG indicator 5.3 — Contraceptive prevalence rate (*) Figures that are based on less than 25 unweighted cases Monitoring the situation of children and women 111Monitoring the situation of children and women 111 (or whose partner is using): Any modern method Any tradi- tional method Any method 1 Number of women age 15-49 years currently married or in union Female condom Diaphragm/ Foam/ Jelly Periodic abstinence Withdrawal Other Missing 0.0 0.0 2.3 51.6 0.2 0.0 7.2 54.0 61.2 1533 0.0 0.0 2.2 51.3 0.1 0.1 7.2 53.6 60.9 1147 0.0 0.0 2.5 52.4 0.4 0.0 6.9 55.4 62.3 386 0.0 0.0 0.2 26.1 0.0 0.0 3.7 26.3 30.0 146 0.0 0.0 2.6 42.0 0.0 0.0 8.4 44.6 53.0 275 0.0 0.0 1.8 54.8 0.2 0.0 7.0 56.7 63.8 230 0.0 0.0 4.7 60.5 0.0 0.3 4.6 65.3 70.2 237 0.0 0.0 0.5 61.3 0.3 0.0 7.5 62.0 69.5 246 0.0 0.0 2.3 57.1 0.3 0.0 10.8 59.6 70.4 220 0.0 0.0 3.2 51.2 0.6 0.0 6.7 55.0 61.7 179 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.2 2.2 95 0.0 0.0 1.4 42.6 0.0 0.0 5.8 43.9 49.7 207 0.0 0.0 3.4 54.4 0.1 0.0 7.6 58.0 65.6 484 0.0 0.0 1.5 56.8 0.1 0.0 9.9 58.4 68.3 350 0.0 0.0 2.6 60.1 0.4 0.2 6.6 63.1 69.9 397 0.0 0.0 0.8 53.8 0.2 0.2 4.0 54.7 59.0 322 0.0 0.0 2.8 50.2 0.2 0.0 7.5 53.2 60.6 1064 0.0 0.0 2.0 57.0 0.0 0.0 11.8 59.0 70.8 147 (*) (*) (*) (*) (*) (*) (*) (*) (*) 1 0.0 0.0 1.3 44.9 0.8 0.0 8.3 47.0 55.3 260 0.0 0.0 2.1 59.3 0.0 0.0 6.3 61.4 67.7 274 0.0 0.0 3.5 54.3 0.2 0.0 5.5 58.0 63.6 307 0.0 0.0 0.8 48.1 0.0 0.0 7.1 48.9 56.1 334 0.0 0.0 3.4 51.5 0.0 0.2 8.4 54.9 63.4 358 0.0 0.0 2.4 53.0 0.3 0.0 6.6 55.7 62.4 841 0.0 0.0 2.1 49.9 0.0 0.1 7.8 52.0 59.9 692 There is almost no difference in use of any method of contraception by area. Adolescents are far less likely to use contraception than older women. Only about 30 percent of women age 15-19 married or in union currently use any method of contraception compared to 53 percent of 20-24 year olds, while the use of contraception among women age 25-49 years ranges from 64 percent to 70 percent. 112 Serbia Multiple Indicator Cluster Survey 2014 and Serbia Roma Settlements Multiple Indicator Cluster Survey 2014112 Serbia Multiple Indicator Cluster Survey 2014 and Serbia Roma Settlements Multiple Indicator Cluster Survey 2014 Contraceptive prevalence is associated with the woman’s education level (Figure RH.1R). The percentage of married women using any method of contraception rises from 59 percent among those with no education, and 61 percent with primary education, to 71 percent among those with secondary or higher education. Usage of modern methods also increases with women’s education (4 percent for women with no education, and 12 percent for women with secondary or higher education). Figure RH.1R: Differentials in contraceptive use, Serbia Roma Settlements, 2014 Table RH.4A.R shows the reasons for never using any methods to avoid or delay a pregnancy. Overall, 38 percent of all women age 15-49 in Roma settlements reported that they have never used any method to avoid or delay a pregnancy. Among them, the highest percentage is for women that have not had sex before (34 percent). 32 percent of women wanted to get pregnant, 9 reported that they lacked information, while for only 1 percent the main reason was lack of financial means. The lack of knowledge, as a reason for never using any methods to avoid or delay pregnancy is associated with education level and wealth status. One in four women with no education stated that lack of knowledge is the reason for never using any contraceptive method, while this was the case for only 1 percent of women with secondary or higher education. Of those women living in the poorest households, 18 percent mentioned that a lack of knowledge is the reason for never using any method to avoid or delay a pregnancy, compared to 4 percent of women living in the richest households. 61 62 59 61 71 61 Area Urban Other Woman's Education None Primary Secondary or higher Serbia Roma Settlements Percent Monitoring the situation of children and women 113Monitoring the situation of children and women 113 Table RH.4A.R: Reasons for never using any methods to avoid or delay pregnancy Percentage of women age 15-49 years that have never used any contraceptive method, and percent distribution of women age 15-49 years by reasons for never using contraception, Serbia Roma Settlements, 2014 Percent of women that never used any method of contra- ception1 Number of women 15-49 years Reasons for never using methods to avoid or delay pregnancy Number of women age 15-49 years who never used any method Have not had sex before Wanted to get pregnant Husband/ partner was against Insufficient means (too expensive) Lack of knowledge2 Other Missing/DK Total Total 38.2 2081 34.2 31.9 3.5 0.6 8.9 20.0 0.9 100.0 796 Area  Urban 39.8 1544 33.8 29.1 4.2 0.5 9.0 22.3 1.2 100.0 614 Other 33.9 537 35.8 41.4 1.1 1.0 8.5 12.2 0.0 100.0 182 Age  15-19 80.8 382 65.1 28.9 1.4 0.4 2.0 2.1 0.0 100.0 308 20-24 44.6 377 26.9 49.1 1.9 0.5 8.9 12.4 0.4 100.0 168 25-29 26.8 284 14.6 33.4 1.3 1.5 13.2 28.6 7.4 100.0 76 30-34 23.5 288 14.0 33.4 11.4 0.8 8.2 30.9 1.3 100.0 68 35-39 21.9 267 0.0 30.4 5.7 0.0 20.7 43.2 0.0 100.0 59 40-44 21.9 254 (10.9) (28.4) (7.2) (1.5) (10.9) (41.1) (0.0) 100.0 55 45-49 26.7 229 (0.0) (1.5) (6.3) (0.0) (25.2) (66.9) (0.0) 100.0 61 Woman’s education  None 38.4 436 22.1 20.7 5.0 0.9 24.6 26.2 0.5 100.0 167 Primary 36.5 1381 29.4 38.9 2.8 0.6 5.6 21.4 1.2 100.0 504 Secondary or higher 46.9 263 71.2 18.7 3.7 0.0 1.0 5.5 0.0 100.0 123 Missing/DK (*) 1 (*) (*) (*) (*) (*) (*) (*) 100.0 1 Wealth index quintiles  Poorest 43.8 397 26.2 31.3 6.0 1.0 18.0 17.5 0.0 100.0 174 Second 34.3 402 42.6 27.6 1.1 1.4 8.1 18.2 0.8 100.0 138 Middle 37.3 405 38.6 27.5 4.3 0.5 6.9 21.5 0.6 100.0 151 Fourth 41.2 413 25.0 43.0 3.5 0.0 6.7 18.8 3.1 100.0 170 Richest 35.1 464 41.4 28.9 1.9 0.0 3.7 24.1 0.0 100.0 163 Wealth index   Poorest 60 percent 38.4 1204 35.1 29.0 4.0 1.0 11.5 19.0 0.4 100.0 463 Richest 40 percent 38.0 877 33.0 36.1 2.7 0.0 5.2 21.4 1.6 100.0 333 1 Survey-specific indicator — Never used any method of contraception 2 Survey-specific indicator — Never used contraception because uninformed ( ) Figures that are based on 25-49 unweighted cases  (*) Figures that are based on less than 25 unweighted cases 114 Serbia Multiple Indicator Cluster Survey 2014 and Serbia Roma Settlements Multiple Indicator Cluster Survey 2014 Unmet Need Unmet need for contraception refers to fecund women who are married or in union and are not using any method of contraception, but who wish to postpone the next birth (spacing) or who wish to stop childbearing altogether (limiting). Unmet need is identified in MICS by using a set of questions eliciting current behaviours and preferences pertaining to contraceptive use, fecundity, and fertility preferences. Table RH.5 shows the levels of met need for contraception, unmet need, and the demand for contraception satisfied. Unmet need for spacing is defined as the percentage of women who are married or in union and are not using a method of contraception AND  are not pregnant, and not postpartum amenorrheic53, and are fecund54, and say they want to wait two or more years for their next birth OR  are not pregnant, and not postpartum amenorrheic, and are fecund, and unsure whether they want another child OR  are pregnant, and say that pregnancy was mistimed: would have wanted to wait OR  are postpartum amenorrheic, and say that the birth was mistimed: would have wanted to wait. Unmet need for limiting is defined as percentage of women who are married or in union and are not using a method of contraception AND  are not pregnant, and not postpartum amenorrheic, and are fecund, and say they do not want any more children OR  are pregnant, and say they did not want to have a child OR  are postpartum amenorrheic, and say that they did not want the birth. Total unmet need for contraception is the sum of unmet need for spacing and unmet need for limiting. Table RH.5 shows that 15 percent of women age 15-49 years in Serbia currently married or in union, have an unmet need for contraception. Over 4 percent of all women have an unmet need for spacing and 11 percent have an unmet need for limiting. There are some differences by region; the highest total unmet need for contraception is in the Belgrade region (22 percent) and the lowest in Southern and Eastern Serbia (9 percent). As expected, younger women (20-24 years old) have higher unmet need for spacing while older age groups of women (40-44 years old) have higher unmet need for limiting. This indicator is also known as unmet need for family planning and is one of the indicators used to track progress toward the Millennium Development Goal 5 of improving maternal health. 53 A woman is postpartum amenorrheic if she had a birth in last two years and is not currently pregnant, and her menstrual period has not returned since the birth of the last child 54 A woman is considered infecund if she is neither pregnant nor postpartum amenorrheic, and (1a) 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) in menopause/has had hysterectomy OR (2) She declares that she has had 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 survey OR (3) She declares she cannot get pregnant when asked about desire for future birth 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. Monitoring the situation of children and women 115 Table RH.5: Unmet need for contraception 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, Serbia, 2014   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 Total 17.0 41.4 58.4 4.3 10.7 14.9 2846 79.6 2088 Region  Belgrade 18.1 26.4 44.5 5.1 17.1 22.2 601 66.7 401 Vojvodina 17.4 40.0 57.4 4.1 7.7 11.8 765 83.0 529 Sumadija and Western Serbia 15.6 43.6 59.2 5.5 12.0 17.5 800 77.2 614 Southern and Eastern Serbia 17.4 53.5 70.8 2.2 6.9 9.1 681 88.7 544 Area  Urban 19.3 38.8 58.1 4.2 10.7 14.8 1651 79.7 1203 Other 14.0 44.9 58.9 4.4 10.7 15.1 1195 79.6 884 Age  15-19 (49.8) (1.8) (51.6) (15.7) (0.0) (15.7) 16 (*) 11 20-24 35.9 11.2 47.1 18.6 1.5 20.1 105 70.1 71 25-29 36.2 17.6 53.9 8.6 3.8 12.4 377 81.3 250 30-34 25.1 34.6 59.7 6.3 7.8 14.1 524 80.8 387 35-39 20.9 44.7 65.5 3.9 10.0 13.9 608 82.5 483 40-44 5.3 56.6 61.9 0.7 17.6 18.2 613 77.3 492 45-49 1.9 49.6 51.5 0.9 13.1 14.0 602 78.6 394 Education  None (4.1) (42.1) (46.2) (3.5) (11.4) (14.9) 15 (*) 9 Primary 11.5 51.9 63.4 3.6 11.2 14.7 383 81.1 299 Secondary 15.1 42.7 57.8 3.5 12.0 15.5 1713 78.9 1256 Higher 24.8 32.6 57.4 6.4 7.4 13.8 735 80.6 523 Wealth index quintiles  Poorest 10.6 46.7 57.3 5.9 11.5 17.4 379 76.7 283 Second 14.9 45.2 60.1 2.2 8.4 10.6 561 84.9 397 Middle 17.3 39.8 57.1 5.6 13.0 18.6 596 75.4 452 Fourth 20.8 41.0 61.7 3.6 9.8 13.4 628 82.2 472 Richest 18.8 36.9 55.7 4.4 10.9 15.3 681 78.4 484 Ethnicity of household head  Serbian 17.2 40.0 57.2 4.3 11.2 15.5 2463 78.7 1791 Hungarian 11.3 68.3 79.6 1.7 6.4 8.1 114 90.8 100 Bosnian 15.2 57.5 72.7 2.5 1.5 4.0 53 94.8 40 Roma 3.8 45.9 49.7 6.1 12.0 18.0 73 73.4 50 Other 23.7 35.9 59.6 3.9 7.9 11.8 107 83.5 76 Does not want to declare (39.5) (28.5) (68.0) (7.2) (7.1) (14.3) 33 (*) 27 1 MICS indicator 5.4; MDG indicator 5.6 — Unmet need ( ) Figures that are based on 25-49 unweighted cases  (*) Figures that are based on less than 25 unweighted cases 116 Serbia Multiple Indicator Cluster Survey 2014 and Serbia Roma Settlements Multiple Indicator Cluster Survey 2014 Met need for limiting includes women married or in union who are using (or whose partner is using) a contraceptive method55, and who want no more children, are using male or female sterilization, or declare themselves as infecund. Met need for spacing includes women who are using (or whose partner is using) a contraceptive method, and who want to have another child, or are undecided whether to have another child. The total of met need for spacing and limiting adds up to the total met need for contraception. Table RH.5 shows that 58 percent of women in Serbia have a total met need for contraception, of which 17 percent have a met need for spacing and 41 percent have a met need for limiting. The met need for limiting is the highest in Southern and Eastern Serbia (54 percent) and is lowest in the Belgrade region (27 percent). The met need for spacing decreases with the women’s age, while the met need for limiting increases. Using information on contraception and unmet need, the percentage of demand for contraception satisfied is also estimated from the MICS data. The percentage of demand satisfied is defined as the proportion of women currently married or in union who are currently using contraception, over the total demand for contraception. The total demand for contraception includes women who currently have an unmet need (for spacing or limiting), plus those who are currently using contraception. In total, 80 percent of women in Serbia have their demand for contraception satisfied, ranging from 70 percent among women age 20-24 years to 81 percent among women age 30-34 years. The demand satisfied is the lowest in the Belgrade region (67 percent) and the highest among women living in Southern and eastern Serbia (89 percent). Table RH.5 shows that the total met need is higher than the total unmet need for family planning. 55 In this chapter, whenever reference is made to the use of a contraceptive by a woman, this may also refer to her partner using a contraceptive method (such as a male condom). Monitoring the situation of children and women 117Monitoring the situation of children and women 117 Unmet Need in Roma Settlements Total unmet need for contraception is the sum of unmet need for spacing and unmet need for limiting. Table RH.5R shows that 14 percent of women in Roma settlements in Serbia, currently married or in union, have an unmet need for contraception. 4 percent of all women have an unmet need for spacing and 10 percent have an unmet need for limiting. The highest unmet need for spacing is observed among the youngest age groups; it is 8 percent for women age 15-19 years and 11 percent for women 20-24 years old. The unmet need for limiting is highest for women age 25-29 years (16 percent). Total unmet need is highest among women age 25-29 years (21 percent) and women age 20-24 years (19 percent). This indicator is also known as unmet need for family planning and is one of the indicators used to track progress toward the Millennium Development Goal 5 of improving maternal health. Table RH.5R: Unmet need for contraception 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, Serbia Roma Settlements, 2014   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 Total 11.4 49.9 61.2 3.9 9.9 13.9 1533 81.5 1152 Area  Urban 12.1 48.8 60.9 3.9 9.3 13.2 1147 82.2 850 Other 9.3 52.9 62.3 4.0 11.8 15.9 386 79.7 302 Age  15-19 25.2 4.8 30.0 8.0 0.3 8.3 146 78.4 56 20-24 24.7 28.3 53.0 11.0 8.4 19.4 275 73.2 199 25-29 15.7 48.1 63.8 4.9 16.0 20.9 230 75.3 194 30-34 9.0 61.2 70.2 2.4 10.3 12.7 237 84.7 197 35-39 5.1 64.5 69.5 0.0 11.3 11.3 246 86.0 199 40-44 0.0 70.4 70.4 0.6 10.5 11.2 220 86.3 179 45-49 0.0 61.7 61.7 0.0 9.3 9.3 179 86.9 127 Education  None 9.2 49.8 59.0 3.6 9.7 13.4 322 81.5 233 Primary 11.2 49.5 60.6 3.9 10.4 14.3 1064 81.0 797 Secondary or higher 17.6 53.2 70.8 4.7 7.4 12.1 147 85.4 122 Missing/DK (*) (*) (*) (*) (*) (*) 1 (*) 0 Wealth index quintiles  Poorest 7.6 47.7 55.3 6.4 12.8 19.1 260 74.3 193 Second 13.7 54.0 67.7 1.8 6.4 8.2 274 89.2 208 Middle 14.8 48.7 63.6 3.9 9.8 13.7 307 82.3 238 Fourth 9.7 46.4 56.1 5.8 9.3 15.1 334 78.7 238 Richest 11.0 52.5 63.4 2.1 11.3 13.4 358 82.6 275 Wealth index  Poorest 60 percent 12.2 50.1 62.4 4.0 9.6 13.6 841 82.1 639 Richest 40 percent 10.4 49.5 59.9 3.9 10.4 14.2 692 80.8 513 1 MICS indicator 5.4; MDG indicator 5.6 — Unmet need (*) Figures that are based on less than 25 unweighted cases 118 Serbia Multiple Indicator Cluster Survey 2014 and Serbia Roma Settlements Multiple Indicator Cluster Survey 2014118 Serbia Multiple Indicator Cluster Survey 2014 and Serbia Roma Settlements Multiple Indicator Cluster Survey 2014 Met need for limiting includes women married or in union who are using (or whose partner is using) a contraceptive method56, and who want no more children, are using male or female sterilization, or declare themselves as infecund. Met need for spacing includes women who are using (or whose partner is using) a contraceptive method, and who want to have another child, or are undecided whether to have another child. The total of met need for spacing and limiting adds up to the total met need for contraception. Table RH.5R shows that 61 percent of women in Roma settlements have a total met need for contraception, of which 11 percent of all women have a met need for spacing and 50 percent have a met need for limiting. Using information on contraception and unmet need, the percentage of demand for contraception satisfied for women in Roma settlements is also estimated from the MICS data. The percentage of demand satisfied is defined as the proportion of women currently married or in union who are currently using contraception, over the total demand for contraception. The total demand for contraception includes women who currently have an unmet need (for spacing or limiting), plus those who are currently using contraception. In total, 82 percent of women in Roma settlements have their demand for contraception satisfied, with lower percentages for women age 20-24 years (73 percent) and women age 25-29 years (75 percent). Table RH.5R shows that the total met need is much higher than the total unmet need for family planning. 56 In this chapter, whenever reference is made to the use of a contraceptive by a woman, this may also refer to her partner using a contraceptive method (such as a male condom). Monitoring the situation of children and women 119 Antenatal Care The antenatal period presents important opportunities for reaching pregnant women with a number of interventions that may be vital to their health and well-being and that of their infants. Better understanding of foetal growth and development and its relationship to the mother’s health has resulted in increased attention to the potential of antenatal care as an intervention to improve both maternal and newborn health. For example, antenatal care can be used to inform women and families about risks and symptoms in pregnancy and about the risks of labour and delivery, and therefore it may provide the route for ensuring that pregnant women do, in practice, deliver with the assistance of a skilled health care provider. Antenatal visits also provide an opportunity to supply information on birth spacing, which is recognized as an important factor in improving infant survival. Tetanus immunization during pregnancy can be life-saving for both the mother and the infant. The prevention and treatment of malaria among pregnant women, management of anaemia during pregnancy and treatment of sexually transmitted infections (STIs) can significantly improve foetal outcomes and improve maternal health. Adverse outcomes such as low birth weight can be reduced through a combination of interventions to improve women’s nutritional status and prevent infections (e.g., malaria and STIs) during pregnancy. More recently, the potential of the antenatal care as an entry point for HIV prevention and care, in particular for the prevention of HIV transmission from mother to child, has led to renewed interest in access to and use of antenatal services. WHO recommends a minimum of four antenatal visits based on a review of the effectiveness of different models of antenatal care. WHO guidelines are specific on the content on antenatal care visits, which include:  Blood pressure measurement  Urine testing for bateriuria and proteinuria  Blood testing to detect syphilis and severe anaemia  Weight/height measurement Antenatal care coverage indicators (at least one visit with a skilled provider and 4 or more visits with any providers) are used to track progress toward the Millennium Development Goal 5 of improving maternal health. The type of personnel providing antenatal care to women age 15-49 years who gave birth in the two years preceding is presented in Table RH.6. The results show that the majority of women (98 percent) receive antenatal care at least once by skilled health personnel. In Serbia, the majority of antenatal care is provided by medical doctors (98 percent). There are no notable differences by backgrounds characteristics. UNICEF and WHO recommend a minimum of four antenatal care visits during pregnancy. It is of crucial importance for pregnant women to start attending antenatal care visits as early in pregnancy as possible in order to prevent and detect pregnancy conditions that could affect both the woman and her baby. Antenatal care should continue throughout the entire pregnancy. Table RH.7 shows the number of antenatal care visits during the latest pregnancy that took place within the two years preceding the survey, regardless of provider, by selected characteristics. 120 Serbia Multiple Indicator Cluster Survey 2014 and Serbia Roma Settlements Multiple Indicator Cluster Survey 2014 Table RH.6: Antenatal care coverage Percent distribution of women age 15-49 years with a live birth in the last two years by antenatal care provider during the pregnancy for the last birth, Serbia, 2014 Provider of antenatal carea No antenatal care Total Any skilled provider1 Number of women with a live birth in the last two years Medical doctor Other/ Missing Total 98.3 0.1 1.6 100.0 98.3 384 Region  Belgrade 94.7 0.0 5.3 100.0 94.7 91 Vojvodina 99.1 0.2 0.6 100.0 99.1 112 Sumadija and Western Serbia 99.7 0.0 0.3 100.0 99.7 102 Southern and Eastern Serbia 99.6 0.0 0.4 100.0 99.6 78 Area  Urban 97.5 0.0 2.5 100.0 97.5 229 Other 99.6 0.2 0.3 100.0 99.6 155 Mother’s age at birth  Less than 20 (98.1) (0.0) (1.9) 100.0 (98.1) 16 20-34 98.1 0.1 1.8 100.0 98.1 320 35-49 99.8 0.0 0.2 100.0 99.8 48 Education  None (*) (*) (*) 100.0 (*) 4 Primary 98.1 0.6 1.2 100.0 98.1 41 Secondary 99.8 0.0 0.2 100.0 99.8 194 Higher 96.8 0.0 3.2 100.0 96.8 145 Wealth index quintiles  Poorest 97.6 0.5 1.9 100.0 97.6 52 Second 100.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 100.0 63 Middle 99.6 0.0 0.4 100.0 99.6 83 Fourth 99.8 0.0 0.2 100.0 99.8 84 Richest 95.4 0.0 4.6 100.0 95.4 102 Ethnicity of household head  Serbian 98.5 0.0 1.5 100.0 98.5 325 Hungarian (97.8) (0.0) (2.2) 100.0 (97.8) 14 Bosnian (100.0) (0.0) (0.0) 100.0 (100.0) 9 Roma (94.3) (2.3) (3.4) 100.0 (94.3) 12 Other (99.2) (0.0) (0.8) 100.0 (99.2) 22 Does not want to declare (*) (*) (*) 100.0 (*) 3 1 MICS indicator 5.5a; MDG indicator 5.5 — Antenatal care coverage a Only the most qualified provider is considered in cases where more than one provider was reported. ( ) Figures that are based on 25-49 unweighted cases  (*) Figures that are based on less than 25 unweighted cases  Percent distribution of women who had: No antenatal care visits One visit Two visits Three visits 4 or more visits1 Missing/ DK Total 1.6 0.9 1.6 1.5 93.9 0.5 Region  Belgrade 5.3 0.2 0.9 1.2 91.9 0.5 Vojvodina 0.6 2.2 2.2 0.6 94.4 0.0 Sumadija and Western Serbia 0.3 0.3 2.6 2.0 94.4 0.4 Southern and Eastern Serbia 0.4 0.9 0.0 2.5 95.1 1.2 Area  Urban 2.5 1.0 1.3 1.0 93.8 0.4 Other 0.3 0.8 2.0 2.3 94.1 0.6 Mother’s age at birth  Less than 20 (1.9) (6.1) (0.0) (0.0) (92.0) (0.0) 20-34 1.8 0.7 1.8 1.7 93.5 0.4 35-49 0.2 0.5 0.5 0.5 97.4 0.9 Education  None (*) (*) (*) (*) (*) (*) Primary 1.2 1.9 1.8 2.3 92.7 0.0 Secondary 0.2 1.3 1.4 1.9 94.2 0.9 Higher 3.2 0.2 0.3 0.6 95.7 0.0 Wealth index quintile  Poorest 1.9 1.8 8.6 3.0 83.9 0.8 Second 0.0 0.0 0.6 4.0 95.4 0.0 Middle 0.4 2.5 0.8 0.4 94.9 1.1 Fourth 0.2 0.4 0.0 1.3 97.6 0.5 Richest 4.6 0.3 0.4 0.4 94.4 0.0 Ethnicity of household head  Serbian 1.5 1.0 0.9 1.4 94.6 0.5 Hungarian (2.2) (0.0) (0.0) (0.0) (97.8) (0.0) Bosnian (0.0) (0.0) (4.7) (4.7) (90.7) (0.0) Roma (3.4) (3.9) (21.9) (4.6) (66.2) (0.0) Other (0.8) (0.0) (0.0) (0.0) (99.2) (0.0) Does not want to declare (*) (*) (*) (*) (*) (*) 1 MICS indicator 5.5b; MDG indicator 5.5 — Antenatal care coverage ( ) Figures that are based on 25-49 unweighted cases  (*) Figures that are based on less than 25 unweighted cases The majority of mothers (97 percent) received antenatal care more than once, and 94 percent of mothers received antenatal care at least four times. Mothers from the poorest households are less likely than other mothers to receive antenatal care four or more times. For example, 84 percent of the women living in poorest households reported four or more antenatal care visits while percentages for the other four wealth quintiles are about 95 percent or above. Monitoring the situation of children and women 121 Table RH.7: Number of antenatal care visits and timing of first visit Percent distribution of women age 15-49 years with a live birth in the last two years by number of antenatal care visits by any provider and by the timing of first antenatal care visits, Serbia, 2014 Total Percent distribution of women by number of months pregnant at the time of first antenatal care visit Total Number of women with a live birth in the last two years Median months pregnant at first ANC visit Number of women with a live birth in the last two years who had at least one ANC visit No antenatal care visits First trimester 4-5 months 6-7 months 8+ months DK/Missing 100.0 1.6 94.3 2.8 0.7 0.1 0.5 100.0 384 1.2 376 100.0 5.3 92.8 1.1 0.9 0.0 0.0 100.0 91 1.2 86 100.0 0.6 93.3 4.5 1.6 0.0 0.0 100.0 112 1.2 112 100.0 0.3 95.9 2.2 0.0 0.0 1.6 100.0 102 1.2 100 100.0 0.4 95.6 3.1 0.2 0.4 0.3 100.0 78 1.4 78 100.0 2.5 93.8 2.6 1.0 0.0 0.1 100.0 229 1.2 223 100.0 0.3 95.1 3.0 0.3 0.2 1.1 100.0 155 1.4 153 100.0 (1.9) (84.4) (8.5) (3.1) (2.1) (0.0) 100.0 16 (3.0) 16 100.0 1.8 94.4 2.5 0.7 0.0 0.6 100.0 320 1.2 312 100.0 0.2 96.9 3.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 48 1.0 48 100.0 (*) (*) (*) (*) (*) (*) 100.0 4 (*) 4 100.0 1.2 96.1 1.7 0.5 0.0 0.5 100.0 41 1.4 41 100.0 0.2 94.2 3.9 0.6 0.2 0.9 100.0 194 1.4 192 100.0 3.2 95.9 0.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 145 1.2 140 100.0 1.9 83.7 7.1 4.1 0.0 3.2 100.0 52 1.8 49 100.0 0.0 95.9 3.6 0.5 0.0 0.0 100.0 63 1.4 63 100.0 0.4 95.1 4.2 0.0 0.0 0.2 100.0 83 1.4 83 100.0 0.2 98.0 1.1 0.4 0.4 0.0 100.0 84 1.2 84 100.0 4.6 95.2 0.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 102 1.2 97 100.0 1.5 95.2 2.4 0.3 0.1 0.5 100.0 325 1.2 318 100.0 (2.2) (95.7) (0.0) (2.1) (0.0) (0.0) 100.0 14 (1.0) 14 100.0 (0.0) (95.3) (4.7) (0.0) (0.0) (0.0) 100.0 9 (2.0) 9 100.0 (3.4) (72.3) (11.2) (13.0) (0.0) (0.0) 100.0 12 (2.1) 11 100.0 (0.8) (93.8) (4.5) (0.0) (0.0) (1.0) 100.0 22 (1.2) 21 100.0 (*) (*) (*) (*) (*) (*) 100.0 3 (*) 3 Table RH.7 also provides information about the timing of the first antenatal care visit. Overall, 94 percent of women with a live birth in the last two years had their first antenatal care visit during the first trimester of their last pregnancy, with a median of 1.2 months of pregnancy at the first visit among those who received antenatal care. A higher percentage (11 percent) of women from the poorest households tend to have their first antenatal care visit after the first trimester, compared to women from other wealth quintiles. The coverage of key services that pregnant women are expected to receive during antenatal care are shown in Table RH.8. 122 Serbia Multiple Indicator Cluster Survey 2014 and Serbia Roma Settlements Multiple Indicator Cluster Survey 2014 Table RH.8: Content of antenatal care Percentage of women age 15-49 years with a live birth in the last two years who, at least once, had their blood pressure and weight measured, urine sample taken, blood sample taken as part of antenatal care, during the pregnancy for the last birth, Serbia, 2014 Percentage of women who, during the pregnancy of their last birth, had: Number of women with a live birth in the last two years Blood pressure measured Urine sample taken Blood sample taken Blood pressure measured, urine and blood sample taken1 Weight measured Blood pressure and weight measured, urine and blood sample taken2 Total 93.8 95.8 97.4 93.6 90.8 90.1 384 Region  Belgrade 87.9 88.5 94.7 87.9 86.7 86.7 91 Vojvodina 95.6 96.2 96.3 95.1 88.9 88.7 112 Sumadija and Western Serbia 95.0 99.4 99.7 95.0 94.8 93.8 102 Southern and Eastern Serbia 96.6 98.8 98.8 96.3 92.8 91.4 78 Area  Urban 93.8 94.6 97.2 93.7 90.8 90.6 229 Other 93.8 97.5 97.5 93.5 90.6 89.4 155 Mother’s age at birth  Less than 20 (95.2) (95.2) (95.2) (95.2) (92.9) (92.9) 16 20-34 93.0 95.2 97.1 92.7 89.5 88.8 320 35-49 99.1 99.8 99.8 99.1 98.1 98.1 48 Education  None (*) (*) (*) (*) (*) (*) 4 Primary 96.2 96.3 96.3 95.4 92.1 92.1 41 Secondary 95.2 98.5 98.6 95.2 91.6 90.6 194 Higher 91.5 92.4 96.4 91.4 89.6 89.4 145 Wealth index quintile  Poorest 91.4 96.1 96.1 90.3 86.5 85.5 52 Second 92.7 96.3 96.6 92.7 89.8 88.9 63 Middle 98.0 99.0 99.4 97.8 93.9 92.9 83 Fourth 97.5 98.8 99.0 97.5 94.7 94.0 84 Richest 89.4 90.2 95.4 89.4 87.7 87.7 102 Ethnicity of household head  Serbian 93.4 95.7 97.6 93.3 90.6 89.9 325 Hungarian (95.0) (97.8) (97.8) (95.0) (93.0) (93.0) 14 Bosnian (100.0) (100.0) (100.0) (100.0) (96.7) (96.7) 9 Roma (92.7) (87.7) (87.7) (87.7) (82.8) (80.5) 12 Other (99.2) (99.2) (99.2) (99.2) (94.5) (94.5) 22 Does not want to declare (*) (*) (*) (*) (*) (*) 3 1 MICS indicator 5.6 — Content of antenatal care 2 Survey-specific indicator — Content of antenatal care (includes measurement of weight) ( ) Figures that are based on 25-49 unweighted cases  (*) Figures that are based on less than 25 unweighted cases  Among those women who had a live birth during the two years preceding the survey, 94 percent of women received the content of antenatal care as defined by the standard MICS indicator and 90 percent of women received the recommended content of antenatal care as defined by the survey-specific indicator (includes weight measurement as well); 97 percent reported that a blood sample was taken during antenatal care visits, 94 percent that their blood pressure was checked, 96 percent that a urine specimen was taken and in 91 percent of cases their weight was measured. Somewhat lower percentages as per each of diagnostic procedures are recorded in the Belgrade region. Legal provisions within the health care system in Serbia envision at least one home visit of a patronage nurse to every woman during pregnancy and up to a maximum of 5 home visits after delivery. The data on the coverage with this service are shown in Table RH.8A. Monitoring the situation of children and women 123 Coverage with home visits during pregnancy is low, whereby only 29 percent of women with a live birth in the last two years received it. The lowest coverage of women is in the Belgrade region (9 percent) while the highest is in Southern and Eastern Serbia (53 percent). Coverage is somewhat higher in other areas (35 percent) when compared with urban areas (25 percent). It is obvious that much more importance is given to postnatal home visits, where 94 percent of women were visited by a patronage nurse in a week after delivery. The average number of postnatal visits by a patronage nurse after birth is 4.3. There are no notable differences by different background characteristics. Table RH.8A: Antenatal and post-natal home visits Percentage of women age 15-49 years with a live birth in the last two years, who were visited at home by a patronage nurse during pregnancy and during the first week upon returning home following birth and the average number of visits after birth, Serbia, 2014   Percentage of women visited by a patronage nurse during Average number of visits after birth by a patronage nurse Number of women with a live birth in the last two yearsPregnancy1 The first week upon returning home following birth2 Total 28.7 94.1 4.3 384 Region  Belgrade 9.3 92.9 4.4 91 Vojvodina 32.3 94.0 4.6 112 Sumadija and Western Serbia 23.6 94.8 4.2 102 Southern and Eastern Serbia 52.5 94.8 3.9 78 Area  Urban 24.6 95.1 4.4 229 Other 34.7 92.7 4.1 155 Age  15-19 (*) (*) (*) 13 20-24 24.7 96.0 4.1 51 25-29 33.8 95.6 4.5 133 30-34 26.0 94.8 4.2 118 35-39 26.1 87.0 4.2 55 40-44 (27.1) (98.3) (5.0) 13 45-49 (*) (*) (*) 0 Education  None (*) (*) (*) 4 Primary 40.0 93.2 3.7 41 Secondary 29.5 94.6 4.2 194 Higher 25.0 93.9 4.6 145 Wealth index quintiles  Poorest 25.8 92.1 3.5 52 Second 43.9 93.7 4.3 63 Middle 32.1 94.5 4.4 83 Fourth 26.8 96.2 4.6 84 Richest 19.5 93.4 4.4 102 Ethnicity of the household head  Serbian 28.6 94.3 4.4 325 Hungarian (24.1) (92.5) (3.6) 14 Bosnian (25.7) (90.7) (3.4) 9 Roma (22.0) (94.6) (4.1) 12 Other (39.5) (94.9) (4.1) 22 Does not want to declare (*) (*) (*) 3 1 Survey-specific indicator — Visited by patronage nurse during pregnancy 2 Survey-specific indicator — Visited by patronage nurse during the first week after returning home following delivery ( ) Figures that are based on 25-49 unweighted cases  (*) Figures that are based on less than 25 unweighted cases  124 Serbia Multiple Indicator Cluster Survey 2014 and Serbia Roma Settlements Multiple Indicator Cluster Survey 2014 During pregnancy, attendance to the childbirth preparation programme (pregnancy and parenting education in primary health care institutions) can significantly improve the mothers’ knowledge on health during pregnancy, delivery, breastfeeding, newborn care and parenting skills. In Serbia, a low percentage of women with live births in the last two years attended a childbirth preparation programme (14 percent). Table RH.8B shows that this programme is more often attended by women living in urban areas, those age 30-34 years, with higher education and among women living in the richest households. 68 percent of women with a live birth in the last 2 years who attended a childbirth preparation programme received information on parenting skills, while more than 80 percent of women received information on women’s health during pregnancy, breastfeeding and newborn care. Table RH.8B: Counselling during childbirth preparation programme Percentage of women age 15-49 years with a live birth in the last two years who attended a childbirth preparation programme, and percentage of women by type of information provided through childbirth preparation programme, Serbia, 2014 Percentage of women who attended a childbirth preparation programme1 Number of women age 15-49 years with live birth in the last 2 years Percentage of women who attended a childbirth preparation programme by type of information received Number of women with a live birth in the last 2 years who attended a childbirth preparation programme Woman’s health during pregnancy Breastfeeding Newborn care Parenting skils Total 14.0 384 82.3 84.1 82.9 68.3 54 Region  Belgrade 26.4 91 (72.9) (74.3) (75.3) (69.2) 24 Vojvodina 11.2 112 (93.0) (98.1) (96.8) (85.4) 13 Sumadija and Western Serbia 8.5 102 (*) (*) (*) (*) 9 Southern and Eastern Serbia 10.8 78 (*) (*) (*) (*) 8 Area  Urban 17.9 229 82.8 84.4 82.8 66.2 41 Other 8.2 155 (*) (*) (*) (*) 13 Age  15-19 (*) 13 (*) (*) (*) (*) 5 20-24 4.7 51 (*) (*) (*) (*) 2 25-29 11.5 133 (92.4) (95.5) (91.1) (87.5) 15 30-34 20.6 118 68.5 69.7 68.7 65.9 24 35-39 12.7 55 (92.7) (92.9) (100.0) (73.2) 7 40-44 (1.5) 13 (*) (*) (*) (*) 0 45-49 * 0 - - - - 0 Education  None 0.0 4 - - - - 0 Primary 0.5 41 (*) (*) (*) (*) 0 Secondary 9.1 194 (97.2) (100.0) (98.8) (69.4) 18 Higher 24.8 145 74.8 76.1 74.9 67.6 36 Wealth index quintiles  Poorest 4.1 52 (*) (*) (*) (*) 2 Second 5.2 63 (*) (*) (*) (*) 3 Middle 7.2 83 (*) (*) (*) (*) 6 Fourth 21.2 84 (97.0) (97.9) (94.0) (67.5) 18 Richest 24.1 102 73.9 73.9 74.9 69.9 25 Ethnicity of the household head  Serbian 16.0 325 81.7 83.6 82.3 67.3 52 Hungarian (7.5) 14 (*) (*) (*) (*) 1 Bosnian (0.0) 9 - - - - 0 Roma (0.0) 12 - - - - 0 Other (1.1) 22 (*) (*) (*) (*) 0 Does not want to declare (*) 3 (*) (*) (*) (*) 0 1 Survey-specific indicator — Coverage by childbirth preparation programme ( ) Figures that are based on 25-49 unweighted cases  (*) Figures that are based on less than 25 unweighted cases  “-” denotes 0 unweighted cases in that cell Monitoring the situation of children and women 125 Table RH.8C shows the reasons for not attending the childbirth preparation programme. A high percentage (86 percent) of women age 15-49 with a live birth in the two years preceding the survey did not attend a childbirth preparation programme. The main reasons for non-attendance are: no need for it (51 percent), not organized in the neighbourhood (20 percent), no time (13 percent) and not knowing that the programme exists (9 percent). Table RH.8C: Reasons for not attending childbirth preparation programme Percentage of women age 15-49 years with a live birth in the last two years who did not attend a childbirth preparation programme, and percent distribution of these women according to main reason for non-attendance, Serbia, 2014 Percentage of women who did not attend a childbirth preparation programme Number of women with a live birth in the last two years Main reason for non-attendance to a childbirth preparation programme Number of women with a live birth in the last 2 years who did not attend a childbirth preparation programme Did not know it exists No need No time Not organ- ised in my neighbour- hood DK/ Don’t remember Other Missing Total Total 86.0 384 9.4 51.2 12.5 20.4 1.5 4.8 0.0 100.0 326 Region  Belgrade 73.6 91 1.9 56.0 30.6 5.8 0.4 5.1 0.3 100.0 62 Vojvodina 88.8 112 7.8 48.0 9.1 28.4 2.9 3.8 0.0 100.0 100 Sumadija and Western Serbia 91.5 102 10.0 54.2 9.1 21.1 1.5 4.1 0.0 100.0 94 Southern and Eastern Serbia 89.2 78 17.8 47.6 5.8 21.3 0.5 7.0 0.0 100.0 70 Area  Urban 82.1 229 7.1 61.2 14.3 11.0 1.9 4.5 0.1 100.0 184 Other 91.8 155 12.5 38.4 10.2 32.6 1.0 5.3 0.0 100.0 142 Age  15-19 (*) 13 (*) (*) (*) (*) (*) (*) (*) 100.0 9 20-24 95.3 51 15.6 48.8 5.0 18.6 5.4 6.7 0.0 100.0 48 25-29 88.5 133 6.7 48.1 10.9 26.4 1.1 6.8 0.0 100.0 118 30-34 79.4 118 7.3 52.6 19.4 17.3 0.8 2.5 0.2 100.0 93 35-39 87.3 55 7.5 62.2 8.8 17.6 0.7 3.2 0.0 100.0 44 40-44 (98.5) 13 (6.2) (63.6) (22.5) (7.7) (0.0) (0.0) (0.0) 100.0 13 45-49 (*) 0 (*) (*) (*) (*) (*) (*) (*) 100.0 0 Woman’s education  None (*) 4 (*) (*) (*) (*) (*) (*) (*) 100.0 4 Primary 99.5 41 15.6 49.4 4.6 26.6 1.4 2.4 0.0 100.0 41 Secondary 90.9 194 10.5 46.7 12.2 23.0 1.1 6.3 0.1 100.0 176 Higher 75.2 145 4.1 61.5 16.3 14.5 0.4 3.2 0.0 100.0 104 Wealth index quintiles  Poorest 95.9 52 20.8 41.5 7.2 20.4 4.5 5.7 0.0 100.0 50 Second 94.8 63 11.5 46.0 8.3 29.9 2.5 1.8 0.0 100.0 60 Middle 92.8 83 6.5 52.0 13.0 17.4 1.1 10.0 0.0 100.0 77 Fourth 78.8 84 7.8 49.8 20.1 16.8 0.5 5.1 0.0 100.0 66 Richest 75.9 102 4.6 62.8 12.1 19.3 0.0 1.0 0.2 100.0 73 Ethnicity of the household head  Serbian 84.0 325 8.3 53.3 13.3 18.4 0.9 5.7 0.1 100.0 268 Hungarian (92.5) 14 (15.0) (40.3) (0.0) (44.7) (0.0) (0.0) (0.0) 100.0 13 Bosnian (100.0) 9 (15.4) (61.6) (0.0) (20.1) (2.8) (0.0) (0.0) 100.0 9 Roma (100.0) 12 (33.6) (27.8) (4.6) (16.4) (17.5) (0.0) (0.0) 100.0 12 Other (98.9) 22 (5.1) (44.3) (11.5) (35.9) (1.2) (1.9) (0.0) 100.0 21 Does not want to declare (*) 3 (*) (*) (*) (*) (*) (*) (*) 100.0 3 ( ) Figures that are based on 25-49 unweighted cases  (*) Figures that are based on less than 25 unweighted cases 126 Serbia Multiple Indicator Cluster Survey 2014 and Serbia Roma Settlements Multiple Indicator Cluster Survey 2014126 Serbia Multiple Indicator Cluster Survey 2014 and Serbia Roma Settlements Multiple Indicator Cluster Survey 2014 Antenatal Care in Roma Settlements The type of personnel providing antenatal care to women in Roma settlements age 15-49 years who gave birth in the two years preceding is presented in Table RH.6R. The results show that about 96 percent of women received antenatal care. For the population of women from Roma settlements in Serbia, the majority of antenatal care is provided by medical doctors (95 percent). The lowest level of antenatal care is observed among women from the poorest wealth quintile (92 percent). Table RH.6R: Antenatal care coverage Percent distribution of women age 15-49 years with a live birth in the last two years by antenatal care provider during the pregnancy for the last birth, Serbia Roma Settlements, 2014   Provider of antenatal carea No antenatal care Total Any skilled provider1 Number of women with a live birth in the last two years Medical doctor Nurse/ Midwife Total 94.6 0.9 4.5 100.0 95.5 405 Area  Urban 95.6 0.7 3.7 100.0 96.3 306 Other 91.5 1.7 6.8 100.0 93.2 99 Mother’s age at birth  Less than 20 96.5 2.0 1.5 100.0 98.5 113 20-34 96.3 0.6 3.1 100.0 96.9 271 35-49 (*) (*) (*) 100.0 (*) 20 Education  None 92.9 0.0 7.1 100.0 92.9 80 Primary 94.8 1.3 3.9 100.0 96.1 292 Secondary or higher (96.7) (0.0) (3.3) 100.0 (96.7) 32 Wealth index quintiles  Poorest 91.1 0.3 8.5 100.0 91.5 104 Second 95.4 1.7 2.9 100.0 97.1 96 Middle 92.3 0.8 6.9 100.0 93.1 85 Fourth 97.9 1.1 1.0 100.0 99.0 52 Richest 99.1 0.9 0.0 100.0 100.0 67 Wealth index   Poorest 60 percent 92.9 0.9 6.1 100.0 93.9 286 Richest 40 percent 98.6 1.0 0.4 100.0 99.6 119 1 MICS indicator 5.5a; MDG indicator 5.5 — Antenatal care coverage a Only the most qualified provider is considered in cases where more than one provider was reported. ( ) 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 127Monitoring the situation of children and women 127 Table RH.7R shows the number of antenatal care visits during the latest pregnancy that took place within the two years preceding the survey, regardless of provider, by selected characteristics. The majority of mothers (91 percent) received antenatal care more than once and 74 percent received antenatal care at least four times. Mothers from the poorest households and those with no education are less likely than more advantaged mothers to receive antenatal care four or more times. Thus, 60 percent of the women living in the poorest households reported four or more antenatal care visits compared with 89 percent among those living in the richest households. Almost 7 percent of women living in other areas, 7 percent of mothers who did not finish primary education and 9 percent of mothers from the poorest wealth quintile had no ANC visits during their last pregnancy. Table RH.7R also provides information about the timing of the first antenatal care visit. Overall, 81 percent of women with a live birth in the last two years from Roma settlements had their first antenatal care visit during the first trimester of their last pregnancy, with a median of 2.0 months of pregnancy. There are some differences by wealth status as only 63 percent of women from the poorest households had their first visit during the first trimester of their last pregnancy while this was the case for 91 percent of women from the richest households. Table RH.7R: Number of antenatal care visits and timing of first visit Percent distribution of women age 15-49 years with a live birth in the last two years by number of antenatal care visits by any provider and by the timing of first antenatal care visits, Serbia Roma Settlements, 2014 Percent distribution of women who had: Missing/ DK Total Percent distribution of women by number of months pregnant at the time of first antenatal care visit Total Number of women with a live birth in the last two years Median months preg- nant at first ANC visit Number of women with a live birth in the last two years who had at least one ANC visit No ante- natal care visits One visit Two visits Three visits 4 or more visits1 No ante- natal care visits First tri- mester 4-5 months 6-7 months 8+ months DK/ Missing Total 4.5 3.1 6.8 9.6 74.4 1.6 100.0 4.5 80.7 11.0 2.0 0.5 1.5 100.0 405 2.0 381 Area  Urban 3.7 3.2 5.2 9.3 76.9 1.8 100.0 3.7 80.9 11.9 1.9 0.1 1.5 100.0 306 2.0 290 Other 6.8 2.9 11.6 10.8 66.7 1.2 100.0 6.8 80.0 8.1 2.2 1.4 1.4 100.0 99 2.0 91 Mother’s age at birth  Less than 20 1.5 3.2 7.4 13.1 73.4 1.4 100.0 1.5 88.7 6.6 0.3 0.5 2.4 100.0 113 2.0 109 20-34 3.1 3.3 6.8 8.4 76.8 1.7 100.0 3.1 79.8 12.8 2.8 0.5 1.1 100.0 271 2.0 260 35-49 (*) (*) (*) (*) (*) (*) 100.0 (*) (*) (*) (*) (*) (*) 100.0 20 (*) 12 Education  None 7.1 3.6 12.7 8.5 66.7 1.4 100.0 7.1 71.0 17.9 2.2 0.0 1.8 100.0 80 2.0 73 Primary 3.9 3.3 5.7 8.6 76.8 1.7 100.0 3.9 82.0 10.2 1.8 0.6 1.5 100.0 292 2.0 276 Secondary or higher (3.3) (0.0) (1.9) (22.2) (71.5) (1.1) 100.0 (3.3) (92.3) (1.1) (3.4) (0.0) (0.0) 100.0 32 (1.0) 31 Wealth index quintile  Poorest 8.5 5.3 10.8 13.6 60.0 1.8 100.0 8.5 62.7 21.1 3.5 0.0 4.2 100.0 104 2.0 91 Second 2.9 2.2 8.0 10.2 75.8 0.9 100.0 2.9 85.6 9.0 1.0 1.3 0.3 100.0 96 2.0 93 Middle 6.9 0.4 7.1 12.8 71.2 1.8 100.0 6.9 83.2 6.3 2.7 0.0 1.0 100.0 85 1.6 79 Fourth 1.0 3.9 3.1 3.0 87.3 1.7 100.0 1.0 90.5 5.6 0.9 1.2 0.9 100.0 52 2.0 51 Richest 0.0 3.8 1.2 4.0 88.9 2.1 100.0 0.0 90.8 8.2 1.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 67 2.0 67 Wealth index   Poorest 60 percent 6.1 2.8 8.7 12.2 68.7 1.5 100.0 6.1 76.5 12.6 2.4 0.4 1.9 100.0 286 2.0 263 Richest 40 percent 0.4 3.9 2.0 3.5 88.2 1.9 100.0 0.4 90.7 7.1 0.9 0.5 0.4 100.0 119 2.0 118 1 MICS indicator 5.5b; MDG indicator 5.5 — Antenatal care coverage ( ) Figures that are based on 25-49 unweighted cases  (*) Figures that are based on less than 25 unweighted cases 128 Serbia Multiple Indicator Cluster Survey 2014 and Serbia Roma Settlements Multiple Indicator Cluster Survey 2014128 Serbia Multiple Indicator Cluster Survey 2014 and Serbia Roma Settlements Multiple Indicator Cluster Survey 2014 The coverage of key services that pregnant women are expected to receive during antenatal care are shown in Table RH.8R. Among the women from Roma settlements who had a live birth during the two years preceding the survey, 87 percent received the content of antenatal care as specified by the standard MICS indicator and 79 percent received the recommended content of antenatal care as per the survey-specific indicator (including measurement of weight); 92 percent reported that a blood sample was taken during antenatal care visits, 89 percent that their blood pressure was checked and urine specimen was taken and in 82 percent of cases weights were measured. Table RH.8R: Content of antenatal care Percentage of women age 15-49 years with a live birth in the last two years who, at least once, had their blood pressure and weight measured, urine sample taken, blood sample taken as part of antenatal care, during the pregnancy for the last birth, Serbia Roma Settlements, 2014   Percentage of women who, during the pregnancy of their last birth, had: Number of women with a live birth in the last two years Blood pressure measured Urine sample taken Blood sample taken Blood pressure measured, urine and blood sample taken1 Weight measured Blood pressure and weight measured, urine and blood sample taken2 Total 88.7 89.2 91.8 86.9 82.3 78.9 405 Area  Urban 88.8 89.4 92.5 86.7 83.5 79.4 306 Other 88.7 88.5 89.7 87.8 78.5 77.4 99 Mother’s age at birth  Less than 20 95.2 95.3 96.1 94.0 85.8 84.8 113 20-34 88.2 88.8 92.3 86.0 82.4 77.9 271 35-49 (*) (*) (*) (*) (*) (*) 20 Education  None 82.6 81.5 88.1 81.5 78.3 72.8 80 Primary 89.6 90.5 92.3 87.5 82.1 79.1 292 Secondary or higher (95.8) (96.7) (96.7) (95.8) (93.6) (92.7) 32 Wealth index quintile  Poorest 83.3 83.1 85.3 82.2 73.8 72.8 104 Second 90.8 91.0 94.2 87.2 84.5 79.2 96 Middle 85.4 86.2 91.5 85.4 85.2 79.7 85 Fourth 96.1 94.9 96.1 94.9 75.9 75.9 52 Richest 92.7 95.5 95.5 89.7 93.7 89.7 67 Wealth index   Poorest 60 percent 86.5 86.7 90.1 84.8 80.8 77.0 286 Richest 40 percent 94.2 95.3 95.8 92.0 85.9 83.6 119 1 MICS indicator 5.6 — Content of antenatal care 2 Survey-specific indicator — Content of antenatal care (includes measurement of weight) ( ) Figures that are based on 25-49 unweighted cases  (*) Figures that are based on less than 25 unweighted cases Legal provisions within the health care system in Serbia envision at least one home visit by a patronage nurse to every woman during pregnancy and up to a maximum of 5 home visits after delivery. Table RH.8A.R shows that the percentage of women in Roma settlements who were visited by a patronage nurse during pregnancy is only 22 percent. It is lower for women from other areas (15 percent) than in urban areas (24 percent). In total, 88 percent of women from Roma settlements were visited by a patronage nurse in the week after returning home following delivery. On average, they were visited 3.5 times. Monitoring the situation of children and women 129Monitoring the situation of children and women 129 Table RH.8A.R: Antenatal and post-natal home visits Percentage of women age 15-49 years with a live birth in the last two years, who were visited at home by a patronage nurse during pregnancy, and during the first week upon returning home following birth and the average number of visits after birth, Serbia Roma Settlements, 2014   Percentage of women visited by a patronage nurse during Average number of visits after birth by a patronage nurse Number of women with a live birth in the last two yearsPregnancy 1 The first week upon returning home following birth2 Total 21.7 88.2 3.5 405 Area  Urban 24.0 89.7 3.5 306 Other 14.5 83.3 3.4 99 Agea  15-19 17.9 92.0 3.5 78 20-24 27.3 82.9 3.4 177 25-29 15.4 93.9 4.2 91 30-34 28.8 89.9 2.9 34 35-39 (6.7) (90.0) (2.2) 20 40-44 (*) (*) (*) 5 Education  None 19.5 87.1 3.1 80 Primary 21.9 87.9 3.5 292 Secondary or higher 25.4 93.2 4.4 32 Wealth index quintiles  Poorest 17.5 83.9 2.9 104 Second 20.5 83.3 3.2 96 Middle 24.1 91.0 3.7 85 Fourth 17.3 93.8 4.1 52 Richest 30.4 93.7 4.2 67 Wealth index  Poorest 60 percent 20.5 85.8 3.2 286 Richest 40 percent 24.7 93.7 4.1 119 1 Survey-specific indicator — Visited by patronage nurse during pregnancy 2 Survey-specific indicator — Visited by patronage nurse during the first week after returning home following delivery a Age group “45-49 years” from the background characteristic “Age” is not shown in the table because there were no recorded cases. ( ) Figures that are based on 25-49 unweighted cases  (*) Figures that are based on less than 25 unweighted cases  The percentage of women in Roma settlements with live births in the two years preceding the survey that attended a childbirth preparation programme is very low, at 3 percent (Table RH.8B.R). Such programmes are mainly attended by women living in urban areas. 130 Serbia Multiple Indicator Cluster Survey 2014 and Serbia Roma Settlements Multiple Indicator Cluster Survey 2014130 Serbia Multiple Indicator Cluster Survey 2014 and Serbia Roma Settlements Multiple Indicator Cluster Survey 2014 Table RH.8B.R: Counselling during childbirth preparation programme Percentage of women age 15-49 years with a live birth in the last two years who attended a childbirth preparation programme, and percentage of women by type of information provided through childbirth preparation programme, Serbia Roma Settlements, 2014 Percentage of women who attended a childbirth preparation programme1 Number of women age 15-49 years with live birth in the last 2 years Total 2.7 405 Area Urban 3.5 306 Other 0.0 99 Agea 15-19 1.2 78 20-24 3.8 177 25-29 3.0 91 30-34 1.0 34 35-39 (0.0) 20 40-44 (*) 5 Education None 0.6 80 Primary 3.4 292 Secondary or higher (1.0) 32 Wealth index quintiles Poorest 6.5 104 Second 0.0 96 Middle 0.8 85 Fourth 0.0 52 Richest 4.9 67 Wealth index Poorest 60 percent 2.6 286 Richest 40 percent 2.7 119 1 Survey-specific indicator — Coverage by childbirth preparation programme a Age group “45-49 years” from the background characteristic “Age” was deleted because there were no recorded cases. The percentages of women who attended a childbirth preparation programme by type of information received are not shown in the table because all results are based on less than 25 unweighted cases. ( ) Figures that are based on 25-49 unweighted cases  (*) Figures that are based on less than 25 unweighted cases  A high percentage (97 percent) of women in Roma settlements did not attend a childbirth preparation programme. (Table RH.8C.R) The main reasons for non-attendance are: no need for it (44 percent), did not know it exists (33 percent), no time and not organized in their neighbourhood (10 percent in both cases). Monitoring the situation of children and women 131Monitoring the situation of children and women 131 Table RH.8C.R: Reasons for not attending childbirth preparation programme Percentage of women age 15-49 years with a live birth in the last two years who did not attend a childbirth preparation programme, and percent distribution of these women according to main reason for non-attendance, Serbia Roma Settlements, 2014 Percentage of women who did not attend a childbirth prepara- tion pro- gramme Number of women with a live birth in the last two years Women who did not attend birth preparation programme, main reason Number of women with a live birth in the last 2 years who did not attend a childbirth preparation programme Did not know it exists No need No time Not organized in my neighbour- hood DK/ Don’t remember Other Missing Total Total 97.3 405 33.1 43.5 10.1 10.1 2.2 1.0 0.0 100.0 392 Area  Urban 96.5 306 32.6 47.2 10.5 7.4 1.4 1.0 0.0 100.0 293 Other 100.0 99 34.7 32.3 8.9 18.2 4.9 1.2 0.0 100.0 99 Agea  15-19 98.8 78 29.5 51.4 7.5 6.3 5.2 0.0 0.0 100.0 77 20-24 96.2 177 41.4 36.7 8.4 11.1 1.7 0.8 0.0 100.0 170 25-29 97.0 91 28.7 44.0 15.8 7.4 2.2 1.9 0.0 100.0 87 30-34 99.0 34 20.2 60.6 12.0 7.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 33 35-39 (100.0) 20 (21.2) (52.1) (8.5) (13.5) (0.0) (4.7) (0.0) 100.0 20 40-44 (*) 5 (*) (*) (*) (*) (*) (*) (*) 100.0 5 Woman’s education  None 99.4 80 46.9 30.9 11.7 6.5 3.4 0.5 0.0 100.0 79 Primary 96.6 292 31.3 44.9 10.0 10.6 2.1 1.0 0.0 100.0 282 Secondary or higher (99.0) 32 (13.1) (63.0) (6.3) (14.4) (0.0) (3.1) (0.0) 100.0 31 Wealth index quintiles  Poorest 93.5 104 42.9 29.5 15.5 6.2 5.6 0.4 0.0 100.0 97 Second 100.0 96 33.5 42.5 7.3 13.5 1.6 1.6 0.0 100.0 96 Middle 99.2 85 35.6 45.8 9.0 7.5 0.7 1.3 0.0 100.0 85 Fourth 100.0 52 31.5 47.8 10.2 10.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 52 Richest 95.1 67 15.6 59.7 7.2 13.9 2.0 1.5 0.0 100.0 63 Wealth index   Poorest 60 percent 97.4 286 37.4 38.9 10.7 9.1 2.7 1.1 0.0 100.0 277 Richest 40 percent 97.3 119 22.8 54.3 8.6 12.4 1.1 0.8 0.0 100.0 115 a Age group “45-49 years” from the background characteristic “Age” is not shown in the table because there were no recorded cases.  ( ) Figures that are based on 25-49 unweighted cases (*) Figures that are based on less than 25 unweighted cases 132 Serbia Multiple Indicator Cluster Survey 2014 and Serbia Roma Settlements Multiple Indicator Cluster Survey 2014 Assistance at Delivery Three quarters of all maternal deaths occur during delivery or the immediate post-partum period. The single most critical intervention for safe motherhood is to ensure that a competent health worker with midwifery skills is present at every birth, and in case of emergency that transport is available to a referral facility for obstetric care. The skilled attendant at delivery indicator is used to track progress toward the Millennium Development Goal 5 of improving maternal health. Table RH.9: Assistance during delivery and caesarean section Percent distribution of women age 15-49 years with a live birth in the last two years by person providing assistance at delivery, and percentage of births delivered by C-section, Serbia, 2014 Person assisting at delivery No attendant Total Medical doctor Nurse/ Midwife Relative/Friend Other Total 89.4 9.0 0.1 1.4 0.1 100.0 Region  Belgrade 86.3 8.3 0.0 5.5 0.0 100.0 Vojvodina 85.0 14.1 0.4 0.3 0.2 100.0 Sumadija and Western Serbia 98.0 2.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 Southern and Eastern Serbia 88.0 11.8 0.0 0.2 0.0 100.0 Area  Urban 89.2 8.7 0.0 2.1 0.0 100.0 Other 89.6 9.5 0.3 0.4 0.1 100.0 Mother’s age at birth  Less than 20 (62.0) (33.3) (2.8) (1.9) (0.0) 100.0 20-34 90.5 7.9 0.0 1.6 0.1 100.0 35-49 91.2 8.7 0.0 0.2 0.0 100.0 Place of delivery  Home (*) (*) (*) (*) (*) 100.0 Health facility 90.9 9.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 Public 90.9 9.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 Private (*) (*) (*) (*) (*) 99.0 Other/Missing/DK (*) (*) (*) (*) (*) 100.0 Education  None (*) (*) (*) (*) (*) 100.0 Primary 88.5 8.9 1.1 1.5 0.0 100.0 Secondary 90.0 9.8 0.0 0.1 0.1 100.0 Higher 88.8 8.0 0.0 3.2 0.0 100.0 Wealth index quintiles  Poorest 85.4 12.1 0.9 1.2 0.4 100.0 Second 91.4 8.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 Middle 91.4 8.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 Fourth 85.8 14.0 0.0 0.2 0.0 100.0 Richest 91.5 3.9 0.0 4.6 0.0 100.0 Ethnicity of household head  Serbian 89.8 8.9 0.0 1.4 0.0 100.0 Hungarian (78.2) (20.2) (0.0) (0.0) (1.5) 100.0 Bosnian (100.0) (0.0) (0.0) (0.0) (0.0) 100.0 Roma (83.7) (7.0) (3.9) (5.4) (0.0) 100.0 Other (91.2) (8.8) (0.0) (0.0) (0.0) 100.0 Does not want to declare (*) (*) (*) (*) (*) 100.0 1 MICS indicator 5.7; MDG indicator 5.2 — Skilled attendant at delivery 2 MICS indicator 5.9 — Caesarean section ( ) 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 133 Delivery assisted by any skilled attendant1 Percent delivered by C-section Number of women who had a live birth in the last two yearsDecided before onset of labour pains Decided after onset of labour pains Total 2 98.4 19.9 8.9 28.8 384 94.5 19.1 5.5 24.6 91 99.1 16.8 8.8 25.6 112 100.0 25.5 11.6 37.1 102 99.8 17.9 9.6 27.5 78 97.9 21.0 8.4 29.4 229 99.2 18.3 9.6 27.9 155 (95.3) (12.0) (1.9) (13.9) 16 98.4 18.9 9.5 28.3 320 99.8 29.4 7.4 36.8 48 (*) (*) (*) (*) 1 100.0 20.2 9.1 29.3 378 100.0 20.2 9.1 29.3 377 (*) (*) (*) (*) 0 (*) (*) (*) (*) 5 (*) (*) (*) (*) 4 97.4 10.5 6.4 16.9 41 99.8 21.3 9.8 31.1 194 96.8 21.1 8.6 29.7 145 97.5 21.4 13.5 34.9 52 100.0 8.6 8.9 17.5 63 100.0 20.3 9.2 29.5 83 99.8 19.5 8.2 27.7 84 95.4 26.1 6.9 33.0 102 98.6 20.0 9.7 29.7 325 (98.5) (27.0) (3.7) (30.8) 14 (100.0) (25.3) (14.9) (40.2) 9 (90.7) (10.9) (1.9) (12.8) 12 (100.0) (18.2) (2.1) (20.3) 22 (*) (*) (*) (*) 3 The MICS included a number of questions to assess the proportion of births attended by a skilled attendant. A skilled attendant includes a doctor, nurse, or midwife. Table RH.9 presents the distribution of women age 15-49 years with a live birth in the last two years by person providing assistance at delivery. 134 Serbia Multiple Indicator Cluster Survey 2014 and Serbia Roma Settlements Multiple Indicator Cluster Survey 2014 Overall, 98 percent of births occurring in the two years preceding the MICS survey were delivered by skilled personnel (Table RH.9). This percentage is equally high across all background characteristics. The majority of births in the two years preceding the MICS survey were delivered with the assistance of a medical doctor (89 percent) followed by assistance by a nurse or midwife (9 percent), Figure RH.3. Figure RH.3: Person assisting at delivery, Serbia, 2014 Table RH.9 also shows information on women who delivered by caesarian section (C-section) and provides additional information on the timing of the decision to conduct a C-section (before labour pains began or after) in order to better assess if such decisions are mostly driven by medical or non–medical reasons. Overall, 29 percent of women who delivered in the last two years had a C-section. For 20 percent of women who delivered in the last two years, the decision to deliver the baby by C-section was taken before the onset of labour pains, and for 9 percent it was after labour pains started. The highest percent of births by C-section are among women age 35-49 years (37 percent). There are some differences by region, whereby the highest percentage of women that had a C-section is found in Sumadija and Western Serbia (37 percent) and the lowest in the Belgrade region (25 percent). 0 1 0 9 89 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 No attendant Other Relative/Friend Nurse/midwife Medical doctor Percent Monitoring the situation of children and women 135Monitoring the situation of children and women 135 Assistance at Delivery in Roma Settlements Almost all births in Roma settlements (99 percent) in the two years preceding the MICS survey were delivered by skilled personnel (Table RH.9R). This percentage is equally high across all background characteristics. Table RH.9R: Assistance during delivery and caesarian section Percent distribution of women age 15-49 years with a live birth in the last two years by person providing assistance at delivery, and percentage of births delivered by C-section, Serbia Roma Settlements, 2014   Person assisting at delivery No attendant Total Delivery assisted by any skilled attendant1 Percent delivered by C-section Number of women who had a live birth in the last two years Medical doctor Nurse/ Midwife Relative/ Friend Other Decided before onset of labour pains Decided after onset of labour pains Total2 Total 88.4 10.2 0.4 0.8 0.2 100.0 98.6 6.2 6.4 12.6 405 Area  Urban 89.6 9.4 0.3 0.6 0.1 100.0 99.0 6.9 6.2 13.1 306 Other 84.9 12.6 0.7 1.3 0.5 100.0 97.5 4.1 7.0 11.1 99 Mother’s age at birth  Less than 20 90.7 9.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 100.0 3.0 6.2 9.2 113 20-34 87.4 11.0 0.5 1.0 0.1 100.0 98.4 7.7 6.3 14.0 271 35-49 (*) (*) (*) (*) (*) 100.0 (*) (*) (*) (*) 20 Place of delivery  Home (*) (*) (*) (*) (*) 100.0 (*) (*) (*) (*) 4 Health facility 89.6 10.3 0.0 0.0 0.1 100.0 99.9 6.3 6.5 12.8 399 Public 89.6 10.4 0.0 0.0 0.1 100.0 99.9 6.3 6.4 12.7 397 Private (*) (*) (*) (*) (*) 100.0 (*) (*) (*) (*) 1 Other/Missing/DK (*) (*) (*) (*) (*) 100.0 (*) (*) (*) (*) 2 Education  None 84.5 14.3 0.0 0.6 0.6 100.0 98.8 1.0 6.6 7.6 80 Primary 89.7 9.1 0.5 0.6 0.1 100.0 98.8 7.2 6.3 13.5 292 Secondary or higher (86.8) (9.9) (0.0) (3.3) (0.0) 100.0 (96.7) (10.5) (6.8) (17.3) 32 Wealth index quintiles  Poorest 85.9 11.4 0.7 1.6 0.5 100.0 97.3 9.7 7.9 17.6 104 Second 86.2 12.6 0.0 1.2 0.0 100.0 98.8 5.2 3.8 9.0 96 Middle 91.0 7.7 0.9 0.0 0.4 100.0 98.7 5.2 6.2 11.4 85 Fourth 91.7 7.3 0.0 1.0 0.0 100.0 99.0 4.8 9.4 14.2 52 Richest 89.8 10.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 100.0 4.7 5.6 10.3 67 Wealth index  Poorest 60 percent 87.5 10.7 0.5 1.0 0.3 100.0 98.2 6.8 6.0 12.8 286 Richest 40 percent 90.6 8.9 0.0 0.4 0.0 100.0 99.6 4.7 7.3 12.0 119 1 MICS indicator 5.7; MDG indicator 5.2 — Skilled attendant at delivery 2 MICS indicator 5.9 — Caesarean section ( ) Figures that are based on 25-49 unweighted cases  (*) Figures that are based on less than 25 unweighted cases 136 Serbia Multiple Indicator Cluster Survey 2014 and Serbia Roma Settlements Multiple Indicator Cluster Survey 2014136 Serbia Multiple Indicator Cluster Survey 2014 and Serbia Roma Settlements Multiple Indicator Cluster Survey 2014 Doctors assisted with the delivery of 88 percent of all births (Figure RH.2R). One in ten of the births (10 percent) in the two years preceding the MICS survey were delivered with assistance by a nurse or midwife. Figure RH.2R: Person assisting at delivery, Serbia Roma Settlements, 2014 In total, 13 percent of women from Roma settlements who delivered in the last two years had a caesarian section (C-section); for 6 percent of women, the decision was taken before the onset of labour pains and for the same percentage of women, the decision was taken after the onset of labour pains. 0 1 0 10 88 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 No attendant Other Relative/Friend Nurse/midwife Medical doctor Percent Monitoring the situation of children and women 137 Place of Delivery Increasing the proportion of births that are delivered in health facilities is an important factor in reducing the health risks to both the mother and the baby. Proper medical attention and hygienic conditions during delivery can reduce the risks of complications and infection that can cause morbidity and mortality to either the mother or the baby. Table RH.10 presents the percent distribution of women age 15-49 who had a live birth in the two years preceding the survey by place of delivery, and the percentage of births delivered in a health facility, according to background characteristics. Table RH.10: Place of delivery Percent distribution of women age 15-49 years with a live birth in the last two years by place of delivery of their last birth, Serbia, 2014   Place of delivery Total Delivered in health facility1 Number of women with a live birth in the last two years Health facility Home Other Missing/DK Public sector Private sector Total 98.2 0.0 0.3 0.2 1.3 100.0 98.3 384 Region  Belgrade 94.1 0.2 0.3 0.3 5.1 100.0 94.3 91 Vojvodina 98.9 0.0 0.8 0.3 0.0 100.0 98.9 112 Sumadija and Western Serbia 100.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 100.0 102 Southern and Eastern Serbia 99.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 100.0 99.8 78 Area  Urban 97.7 0.1 0.1 0.0 2.1 100.0 97.8 229 Other 99.0 0.0 0.6 0.4 0.0 100.0 99.0 155 Mother’s age at birth  Less than 20 (95.3) (0.0) (2.8) (1.9) (0.0) 100.0 (95.3) 16 20-34 98.2 0.0 0.2 0.1 1.5 100.0 98.2 320 35-49 99.5 0.4 0.0 0.0 0.2 100.0 99.8 48 Number of antenatal care visits  None (*) (*) (*) (*) (*) 100.0 (*) 6 1-3 visits (97.1) (0.0) (2.9) (0.0) (0.0) 100.0 (97.1) 15 4+ visits 99.6 0.0 0.2 0.2 0.0 100.0 99.6 361 Education  None (*) (*) (*) (*) (*) 100.0 (*) 4 Primary 97.4 0.0 1.1 1.5 0.0 100.0 97.4 41 Secondary 99.7 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.1 100.0 99.7 194 Higher 96.5 0.1 0.2 0.0 3.2 100.0 96.6 145 Wealth index quintiles  Poorest 97.5 0.0 1.3 1.2 0.0 100.0 97.5 52 Second 100.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 100.0 63 Middle 99.7 0.0 0.3 0.0 0.0 100.0 99.7 83 Fourth 99.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 100.0 99.8 84 Richest 95.0 0.2 0.2 0.0 4.6 100.0 95.2 102 Ethnicity of household head  Serbian 98.4 0.1 0.2 0.0 1.4 100.0 98.5 325 Hungarian (98.5) (0.0) (1.5) (0.0) (0.0) 100.0 (98.5) 14 Bosnian (100.0) (0.0) (0.0) (0.0) (0.0) 100.0 (100.0) 9 Roma (90.7) (0.0) (3.9) (5.4) (0.0) 100.0 (90.7) 12 Other (100.0) (0.0) (0.0) (0.0) (0.0) 100.0 (100.0) 22 Does not want to declare (*) (*) (*) (*) (*) 100.0 (*) 3 1 MICS indicator 5.8 — Institutional deliveries ( ) Figures that are based on 25-49 unweighted cases  (*) Figures that are based on less than 25 unweighted cases  138 Serbia Multiple Indicator Cluster Survey 2014 and Serbia Roma Settlements Multiple Indicator Cluster Survey 2014 About 98 percent of births in Serbia are delivered in a health facility; almost all deliveries occur in public sector facilities (98 percent) and less than 1 percent take place at home. The proportion of institutional deliveries varies from 94 percent in the Belgrade region to 100 percent in Sumadija and Western Serbia. Table RH.10A: Use of baby-friendlya services Percentage of women age 15-49 years with a live birth in the last two years who reported not being in the same room with the child after birth, percent distribution of these women by reason for not being in the same room with the child after birth, and the percentage of women who reported being in the same room with the child after birth, Serbia, 2014   Percentage of women who reported not being in the same room with the child after birth Percentage of women who reported being in the same room with the child after birth1 Number of women with a live birth in the last two year Percent distribution Did not want There were no conditions Total 39.2 60.8 384 1.8 30.6 Region  Belgrade 43.4 56.6 91 4.0 23.1 Vojvodina 34.3 65.7 112 1.1 30.7 Sumadija and Western Serbia 43.2 56.8 102 0.6 30.4 Southern and Eastern Serbia 35.9 64.1 78 1.8 41.4 Area  Urban 38.2 61.8 229 3.2 24.9 Other 40.6 59.4 155 0.0 38.6 Mother’s age at birth  15-19 (*) (*) 13 (*) (*) 20-24 29.9 70.1 51 (0.0) (50.9) 25-29 39.1 60.9 133 0.7 31.1 30-34 38.0 62.0 118 4.2 29.5 35-39 49.9 50.1 55 0.9 19.6 40-44 (45.8) (54.2) 13 (*) (*) 45-49 (*) (*) 0 (*) (*) Education  None (*) (*) 4 (*) (*) Primary 42.6 57.4 41 (0.0) (24.6) Secondary 38.9 61.1 194 0.6 42.2 Higher 39.3 60.7 145 4.1 16.6 Wealth index quintiles  Poorest 37.8 62.2 52 (0.0) (29.7) Second 33.9 66.1 63 (0.0) (30.1) Middle 37.8 62.2 83 0.0 40.3 Fourth 38.4 61.6 84 5.6 41.4 Richest 44.9 55.1 102 2.1 17.1 Ethnicity of household head  Serbian 40.1 59.9 325 2.1 31.2 Hungarian (43.5) (56.5) 14 (*) (*) Bosnian (25.2) (74.8) 9 (*) (*) Roma (28.9) (71.1) 12 (*) (*) Other (33.7) (66.3) 22 (*) (*) Does not want to declare (*) (*) 3 (*) (*) 1 Survey-specific indicator — Coverage by baby-friendly services a Women who reported using baby-friendly services are those that reported being in the same room with the child after birth. ( ) 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 139 of women who reported not being in the same room with the child after birth by reason Number of women who reported not being in the same room with the child after birthDue to illness of mother and/or baby Missing Total 64.3 3.2 100.0 150 61.0 11.8 100.0 39 68.2 0.0 100.0 39 69.0 0.0 100.0 44 56.3 0.5 100.0 28 66.4 5.5 100.0 88 61.4 0.0 100.0 63 (*) (*) 100.0 4 (49.1) (0.0) 100.0 15 68.2 0.0 100.0 52 65.0 1.2 100.0 45 64.4 15.1 100.0 28 (*) (*) 100.0 6 (*) (*) 100.0 0 (*) (*) 100.0 1 (75.4) (0.0) 100.0 18 57.0 0.2 100.0 75 71.1 8.2 100.0 57 (70.3) (0.0) 100.0 20 (69.9) (0.0) 100.0 21 59.7 0.0 100.0 31 52.6 0.4 100.0 32 70.6 10.2 100.0 46 63.3 3.4 100.0 130 (*) (*) 100.0 6 (*) (*) 100.0 2 (*) (*) 100.0 3 (*) (*) 100.0 7 (*) (*) 100.0 1 Table RH.10A presents the proportion of women age 15-49 years with a live birth in the last two years, who were in the same room with the child after birth. 61 percent of women in Serbia reported that they were in the same room with their baby. The highest percentage of women who were in the room with their baby is in the Vojvodina region (66 percent) and among women aged 20-24 (70 percent). The right panel of Table RH.10A shows the reasons why women were not in the same room with the child after birth. Nearly two-thirds (64 percent) of women reported that the main reason why they were not in the same room with the child after birth was due to illness of mother and/or baby while about one third (31 percent) cited the lack of conditions. Only 2 percent did not want to be in the same room with the child after birth. 140 Serbia Multiple Indicator Cluster Survey 2014 and Serbia Roma Settlements Multiple Indicator Cluster Survey 2014140 Serbia Multiple Indicator Cluster Survey 2014 and Serbia Roma Settlements Multiple Indicator Cluster Survey 2014 Place of Delivery in Roma Settlements Table RH.10R presents the percent distribution of women from Roma settlements age 15-49 that had a live birth in the two years preceding the survey by place of delivery, and the percentage of births delivered in a health facility, according to background characteristics. Almost all (99 percent) of births were delivered in a health facility and 98 percent occurred in public sector facilities. Table RH.10R: Place of delivery Percent distribution of women age 15-49 years with a live birth in the last two years by place of delivery of their last birth, Serbia Roma Settlements, 2014   Place of delivery Missing/DK Total Delivered in health facility1 Number of women with a live birth in the last two years Health facility Home Other Public sector Private sector Total 98.2 0.3 0.9 0.2 0.4 100.0 98.5 405 Area  Urban 98.6 0.2 0.4 0.3 0.5 100.0 98.8 306 Other 96.9 0.6 2.5 0.0 0.0 100.0 97.5 99 Mother’s age at birth  Less than 20 100.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 100.0 113 20-34 97.7 0.5 0.9 0.3 0.6 100.0 98.2 271 35-49 (*) (*) (*) (*) (*) 100.0 (*) 20 Number of antenatal care visits  None (*) (*) (*) (*) (*) 100.0 (*) 18 1-3 visits 99.4 0.0 0.0 0.6 0.0 100.0 99.4 79 4+ visits 98.8 0.4 0.6 0.1 0.0 100.0 99.2 301 Missing/DK (*) (*) (*) (*) (*) 100.0 (*) 7 Education  None 98.1 0.7 0.6 0.0 0.6 100.0 98.8 80 Primary 98.7 0.0 1.1 0.2 0.0 100.0 98.7 292 Secondary or higher (93.7) (2.0) (0.0) (1.0) (3.3) 100.0 (95.7) 32 Wealth index quintiles  Poorest 96.8 0.6 1.8 0.4 0.5 100.0 97.3 104 Second 98.8 0.0 0.7 0.0 0.5 100.0 98.8 96 Middle 97.8 0.8 1.5 0.0 0.0 100.0 98.5 85 Fourth 99.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 100.0 99.0 52 Richest 99.5 0.0 0.0 0.5 0.0 100.0 99.5 67 Wealth index  Poorest 60 percent 97.8 0.4 1.3 0.2 0.3 100.0 98.2 286 Richest 40 percent 99.3 0.0 0.0 0.3 0.4 100.0 99.3 119 1 MICS indicator 5.8 — Institutional deliveries ( ) 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 141Monitoring the situation of children and women 141 Table RH.10A.R presents the proportion of women age 15-49 years in Roma settlements with a live birth in the last two years, who were in the same room with the child after birth. 75 percent of women used this element of baby-friendly services and the highest percentage is among young women age 15-19 years (80 percent). Nearly two-thirds (69 percent) of women reported that the main reason why they were not in the same room with the child after birth is due to illness of mother and/or baby while about one third (30 percent) cited the lack of conditions. Table RH.10A.R: Use of baby-friendlya services Percentage of women age 15-49 years with a live birth in the last two years who reported not being in the same room with the child after birth, percent distribution of these women by reason for not being in the same room with the child after birth, and the percentage of women who reported being in the same room with the child after birth, Serbia Roma Settlements, 2014 Percentage of women who reported not being in the same room with the child after birth Percentage of women who reported being in the same room with the child after birth1 Number of women with a live birth in the last two year Percent distribution of women who reported not being in the same room with the child after birth by reason Number of women who reported not being in the same room with the child after birth Did not want There were no conditions Due to illness of mother and/ or baby Missing Total Total 25.1 74.9 405 0.3 29.7 68.5 1.5 100.0 102 Area  Urban 26.3 73.7 306 0.4 26.4 71.3 1.9 100.0 80 Other (21.5) 78.5 99 (0.0) (42.1) (57.9) (0.0) 100.0 21 Mother’s age at birthb  15-19 19.6 80.4 78 (*) (*) (*) (*) 100.0 15 20-24 24.5 75.5 177 0.8 24.1 75.1 0.0 100.0 43 25-29 26.1 73.9 91 (*) (*) (*) (*) 100.0 24 30-34 26.1 73.9 34 (*) (*) (*) (*) 100.0 10 35-39 (28.8) (71.2) 20 (*) (*) (*) (*) 100.0 9 40-44 (*) (*) 5 (*) (*) (*) (*) 100.0 1 Education  None 19.1 80.9 80 (0.0) (47.6) (49.4) (3.1) 100.0 15 Primary 26.8 73.2 292 0.4 26.8 72.8 0.0 100.0 78 Secondary or higher (25.0) (75.0) 32 (*) (*) (*) (*) 100.0 8 Wealth index quintiles  Poorest 32.9 67.1 104 0.0 24.7 73.9 1.4 100.0 34 Second 19.4 80.6 96 (0.0) (38.6) (58.6) (2.8) 100.0 19 Middle 22.0 78.0 85 (1.8) (30.1) (68.0) (0.0) 100.0 19 Fourth 22.0 78.0 52 (*) (*) (*) (*) 100.0 12 Richest 27.9 72.1 67 (0.0) (32.2) (67.8) (0.0) 100.0 19 Wealth index   Poorest 60 percent 25.1 74.9 286 0.5 29.7 68.4 1.4 100.0 72 Richest 40 percent 25.3 74.7 119 (0.0) (29.6) (68.7) (1.7) 100.0 30 1 Survey-specific indicator — Coverage by baby-friendly services a Women who reported using baby-friendly services are those that reported being in the same room with the child after birth.   b Age group “45-49 years” from the background characteristic “Mother’s age at birth” is not shown in the table because there were no recorded cases. ( ) Figures that are based on 25-49 unweighted cases  (*) Figures that are based on less than 25 unweighted cases  142 Serbia Multiple Indicator Cluster Survey 2014 and Serbia Roma Settlements Multiple Indicator Cluster Survey 2014 Abortions Table RH.11 presents findings on the lifetime experience of women age 15-49 years with wasted pregnancies. The mean number of live births per woman is 1.2, of miscarriages is 0.2 and of induced abortions is 0.3. In Serbia, overall 15 percent of women have had at least one induced abortion. Older women age 45-49 years (32 percent), women with primary education (28 percent) and those in the poorest quintile (21 percent) are more likely to have experienced an induced abortion. There are differences by regions, and the percentage of women who underwent at least one induced abortion ranges from 8 percent in the Belgrade region to 19 percent in Southern and Eastern Serbia. Table RH.11: Lifetime experience with wasted pregnancies Mean number of live births, miscarriages, induced abortions and stillbirths, percentage of women who have ever had an induced abortion and percent distribution by number of abortions, Serbia, 2014   Mean number of: Percentage of women with at least one induced abortion1Live births Miscarriages Induced Abortions Stillbirths Total 1.2 0.2 0.3 0.0 14.6 Age  15-19 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.4 20-24 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.2 25-29 0.7 0.1 0.1 0.0 6.5 30-34 1.4 0.2 0.2 0.0 11.2 35-39 1.7 0.3 0.2 0.0 14.7 40-44 1.9 0.3 0.5 0.0 26.4 45-49 1.7 0.3 0.8 0.0 32.3 Area  Urban 1.1 0.2 0.3 0.0 13.9 Other 1.3 0.2 0.3 0.0 15.6 Region  Belgrade 1.0 0.2 0.1 0.0 8.4 Vojvodina 1.2 0.2 0.3 0.0 17.4 Sumadija and Western Serbia 1.3 0.2 0.3 0.0 13.6 Southern and Eastern Serbia 1.3 0.2 0.4 0.0 18.8 Education  None (2.9) (0.4) (0.7) (0.1) (27.7) Primary 2.0 0.3 0.6 0.0 28.4 Secondary 1.3 0.2 0.3 0.0 16.1 Higher 0.7 0.2 0.1 0.0 7.9 Wealth index quintile  Poorest 1.6 0.2 0.4 0.0 21.4 Second 1.2 0.2 0.4 0.0 18.3 Middle 1.1 0.2 0.2 0.0 11.6 Fourth 1.1 0.1 0.2 0.0 14.7 Richest 1.1 0.2 0.2 0.0 10.3 Ethnicity of household head  Serbian 1.1 0.2 0.2 0.0 13.9 Hungarian 1.4 0.2 0.8 0.0 24.8 Bosnian 2.0 0.3 0.5 0.0 17.1 Roma 2.2 0.3 0.6 0.0 25.6 Other 1.1 0.2 0.1 0.1 12.0 Does not want to declare (0.9) (0.5) (0.3) (0.0) (17.1) 1 Survey-specific indicator — Lifetime experience with abortion ( ) 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 143 Number of women age 15-49 Among women who had an abortion, percent distribution by number of abortions Total Number of women age 15-49 with abortions 1 2-3 4+ 4713 54.5 37.8 7.7 100.0 686 515 (*) (*) (*) 100.0 2 562 (*) (*) (*) 100.0 7 667 83.2 16.1 0.7 100.0 44 704 65.7 31.3 3.0 100.0 79 758 62.6 33.0 4.5 100.0 112 745 52.3 39.4 8.3 100.0 197 763 42.5 45.9 11.6 100.0 246 2870 53.2 36.7 10.1 100.0 399 1843 56.2 39.3 4.5 100.0 287 1105 62.4 34.1 3.5 100.0 93 1238 59.1 30.5 10.4 100.0 215 1293 52.6 42.8 4.5 100.0 176 1077 47.6 42.8 9.6 100.0 203 20 (*) (*) (*) 100.0 6 473 55.7 29.6 14.8 100.0 135 2604 52.0 41.0 7.0 100.0 419 1616 62.9 35.4 1.7 100.0 128 600 58.3 32.8 9.0 100.0 128 954 49.2 39.8 11.0 100.0 174 1025 53.0 40.2 6.9 100.0 119 1035 58.5 36.6 4.9 100.0 152 1099 54.5 39.4 6.2 100.0 113 4131 55.2 38.9 5.9 100.0 574 172 (45.2) (29.7) (25.1) 100.0 43 80 (*) (*) (*) 100.0 14 102 (53.1) (27.8) (19.2) 100.0 26 170 (*) (*) (*) 100.0 20 54 (*) (*) (*) 100.0 9 Among women age 15-49 who have had an abortion, 55 percent of women had one abortion, 38 percent had 2 or 3, and 8 percent had four or more abortions. The percentage of women who had 4 or more abortions is slightly higher in urban than other areas (10 percent compared to 5 percent), and decreases with an increase in education level, ranging from 15 percent among women with primary education to 2 percent for women with higher education. 144 Serbia Multiple Indicator Cluster Survey 2014 and Serbia Roma Settlements Multiple Indicator Cluster Survey 2014144 Serbia Multiple Indicator Cluster Survey 2014 and Serbia Roma Settlements Multiple Indicator Cluster Survey 2014 Abortions in Roma Settlements Table RH.11R presents results on the lifetime experience of women age 15-49 years from Roma settlements with wasted pregnancies. The mean number of live births per woman is 2.3, of miscarriages is 0.3, of induced abortions is 1 and of stillbirths is 0.1. In total, 31 percent of women from Roma settlements have had at least one induced abortion. The highest percentage of women who had induced abortions is among women age 45-49 years (56 percent) and among women with primary education (34 percent). The percentage for women in the poorest wealth index quintile is lower (20 percent) compared to other wealth quintiles where the percentages range from 31 to 35 percent. Among women who have had an abortion, 29 percent had one abortion, 41 percent had 2 or 3 and 30 percent had four or more abortions. Almost half of women age 20-24 and those age 25-29 years reported having had one induced abortion. Table RH.11R: Lifetime experience with wasted pregnancies Mean number of live births, miscarriages, induced abortions and stillbirths, percentage of women who have ever had an induced abortion and percent distribution by number of abortions, Serbia Roma Settlements, 2014   Mean number of: Percentage of women with at least one induced abortion1 Number of women age 15-49 Among women who had an abortion, percent distribution by number of abortions Total Number of women age 15-49 with abortionsLive births Miscarriages Induced Abortions Stillbirths 1 2-3 4+ Total 2.3 0.3 1.0 0.1 30.6 2081 29.1 40.8 30.0 100.0 638 Age  15-19 0.3 0.1 0.0 0.0 2.8 382 (*) (*) (*) 100.0 11 20-24 1.6 0.2 0.3 0.0 14.5 377 48.7 37.4 13.9 100.0 55 25-29 2.6 0.2 0.8 0.0 27.3 284 45.0 38.9 16.1 100.0 78 30-34 3.0 0.2 1.2 0.0 42.2 288 25.4 45.4 29.2 100.0 121 35-39 3.2 0.4 1.7 0.1 41.6 267 22.5 40.4 37.2 100.0 111 40-44 3.3 0.5 1.9 0.3 52.4 254 26.0 38.7 35.3 100.0 133 45-49 3.1 0.5 2.3 0.0 56.3 229 19.6 43.5 36.9 100.0 129 Area  Urban 2.3 0.3 1.0 0.1 29.8 1544 31.3 39.0 29.7 100.0 460 Other 2.1 0.3 1.2 0.0 33.1 537 23.4 45.7 31.0 100.0 178 Education  None 3.0 0.3 1.1 0.2 25.8 436 25.5 32.6 42.0 100.0 113 Primary 2.2 0.3 1.1 0.0 34.1 1381 29.6 41.4 29.0 100.0 471 Secondary or higher 1.2 0.2 0.6 0.0 20.5 263 (32.7) (52.7) (14.6) 100.0 54 Missing/DK (*) (*) (*) (*) (*) 1 (*) (*) (*) 100.0 1 Wealth index quintile  Poorest 2.8 0.3 0.7 0.2 20.2 397 29.5 39.6 30.8 100.0 80 Second 2.4 0.3 1.0 0.0 33.1 402 38.9 36.4 24.7 100.0 133 Middle 2.3 0.2 1.2 0.0 31.0 405 34.2 30.7 35.0 100.0 125 Fourth 2.2 0.3 1.0 0.1 33.1 413 19.7 55.4 24.9 100.0 136 Richest 1.8 0.3 1.2 0.0 34.9 464 24.9 40.6 34.5 100.0 162 Wealth index   Poorest 60 percent 2.5 0.3 1.0 0.1 28.1 1204 34.9 35.1 30.0 100.0 339 Richest 40 percent 2.0 0.3 1.1 0.0 34.1 877 22.5 47.4 30.1 100.0 299 1 Survey-specific indicator — Lifetime experience with abortion ( ) 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 145 IXIX EARLY CHILDHOOD EARLY CHILDHOOD DEVELOPMENTDEVELOPMENT Early Childhood Care and Education Readiness of children for primary school can be improved through attendance to early childhood education programmes or through pre-school attendance. Early childhood education programmes include programmes for children that have organised learning components as opposed to baby-sitting and day-care which do not typically have organised education and learning. Early childhood education programmes in Serbia are mainly provided as a part of the preschool education system. Preschool education is organized through the three main modalities dependant on the child’s age: (a) nurseries for children aged 0.5 to 3 years, (b) kindergartens for children aged 3 to 6.5 years, and (c) the compulsory Preparatory Preschool Programme (PPP) that is implemented in kindergartens or in primary schools (only in cases where kindergartens lack physical capacity). Since 2007, PPP is mandatory for all children 5.5 to 6.5 years of age, who have to attend 9 months of PPP in the year before they start primary education. Other forms of pre-school education are not obligatory. 50 percent of children age 36-59 months attend an organised early childhood education programme (Table CD.1). Urban- other and regional differentials are very notable — the figure is as high as 63 percent in urban areas, compared to 27 percent in other areas. Among children age 36-59 months, attendance to early childhood education programmes is more prevalent in the Belgrade region (72 percent), and lowest in the Southern and Eastern Serbia as well as in Sumadija and Western Serbia (36 percent). No gender differential exists, but differentials by socioeconomic status are very striking. 82 percent of children living in the richest households attend such programmes, while the figure drops to 9 percent in the poorest households. The disparity in attendance is also obvious if looking at the mother’s education, as attendance of children whose mothers have higher education is 76 percent and it drops to 15 percent for children of mothers with primary education. The proportion of children attending early childhood education programmes at ages 36-47 months is 44 percent while attendance among the older age group of 48-59 months is 56 percent. In order to better understand the reasons for non-attendance to early childhood education programmes, survey-specific questions were introduced into the questionnaire for children under 5 years (Table CD.1A). The categories of answers were classified into 3 broader groups: parental attitudes, access issues and other reasons. The reasons for non-attendance that fall into the first category are that the: child will not learn much in an early childhood education programme, child has a disability, service is of low quality, child will be poorly treated and there is someone at home to take care of the child. Reasons aggregated within the access issues are: both parents are unemployed, there is no free space in preschools, service is too expensive, other expenses are too high, and there is no organized transport for children. The main reason for non-attendance to early childhood education programmes is that there is someone who can take care of the child at home (66 percent) and this is the most dominant response within the category of parental attitudes across different background characteristics. Access issues are reasons for non-attendance for 38 percent of children age 36-59 months, while different aspects of access related issues are reasons for non-attendance as per different background characteristics. Costly services present an obstacle mainly for children from the Belgrade region (34 percent) and urban areas (21 percent) while overcrowded facilities are more frequent reasons for children from Vojvodina (21 percent) and those from the poorest households (17 percent). 146 Serbia Multiple Indicator Cluster Survey 2014 and Serbia Roma Settlements Multiple Indicator Cluster Survey 2014 Table CD.1: Early childhood education Percentage of children age 36-59 months who are attending an organized early childhood education programme, Serbia, 2014   Percentage of children age 36-59 months attending early childhood education1 Number of children age 36-59 months Total 50.2 1200 Sex  Male 51.8 631 Female 48.5 570 Region  Belgrade 72.2 386 Vojvodina 47.4 283 Sumadija and Western Serbia 35.9 309 Southern and Eastern Serbia 35.7 223 Area  Urban 62.6 780 Other 27.3 421 Age of child  36-47 months 43.6 545 48-59 months 55.8 655 Mother’s education  None (*) 15 Primary 14.9 143 Secondary 41.4 603 Higher 75.5 440 Wealth index quintile  Poorest 8.6 174 Second 31.6 184 Middle 41.6 187 Fourth 52.6 284 Richest 81.6 371 Ethnicity of household head  Serbian 52.9 1023 Hungarian (56.9) 30 Bosnian (13.8) 30 Roma (6.2) 42 Other (19.9) 45 Does not want to declare (*) 31 Missing/DK (*) 1 1 MICS indicator 6.1 — Attendance to early childhood education ( ) Figures that are based on 25-49 unweighted cases (*) Figures that are based on less than 25 unweighted cases Reasons Parental Not much to learn in early childhood education programme Disabled Low level of service Total 0.5 1.0 0.4 Sex  Male 0.2 1.6 0.6 Female 0.8 0.3 0.2 Region  Belgrade 0.0 0.9 0.5 Vojvodina 0.4 1.3 0.5 Sumadija and Western Serbia 1.2 1.5 0.0 Southern and Eastern Serbia 0.0 0.0 0.8 Area  Urban 0.4 1.2 0.8 Other 0.5 0.7 0.0 Age  36-47 months 0.2 1.4 0.4 48-59 months 0.8 0.6 0.4 Mother’s education  None (*) (*) (*) Primary 0.0 0.7 0.0 Secondary 0.5 0.9 0.0 Higher 1.2 1.5 2.2 Father’s education  None (*) (*) (*) Primary 0.6 0.0 0.0 Secondary 0.7 1.3 0.0 Higher 0.0 0.5 2.8 Father not in household (0.0) (0.0) (0.0) Wealth index quintiles  Poorest 0.0 0.6 0.0 Second 0.5 0.4 0.0 Middle 0.0 1.5 0.7 Fourth 1.7 0.6 0.4 Richest 0.0 3.0 1.6 Ethnicity of household head  Serbian 0.5 1.0 0.5 Hungarian (*) (*) (*) Bosnian (0.0) (0.0) (0.0) Roma (0.0) (2.3) (0.0) Other (0.0) (0.0) (0.0) Does not want to declare (*) (*) (*) 1 Survey-specific indicator — Non-attendance to early childhood education programme due to parental attitudes 2 Survey-specific indicator — Non-attendance to early childhood education programme due to access problems 3 Survey-specific indicator — Non-attendance to early childhood education programme due to other reasons ( ) 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 147 Table CD.1A: Early child development Percentage of children age 36-59 months by reasons for non-attendance to an early childhood education programme, Serbia, 2014 for non-attendance to an early childhood education programme Parental attitudes1 Access problems2 Other reasons3 Number of children age 36-59 months not attending an early childhood education programme attitudes Access problems Poor treatment The child is taken care of at home Both parents unemployed Overcrowded facility Costly services Other expenses too high The facility is too far / No organized transport for children 0.2 65.9 4.2 9.8 13.8 3.2 9.6 67.3 38.4 11.4 582 0.4 63.0 4.1 15.3 18.7 3.5 8.4 64.6 48.0 8.9 297 0.0 68.9 4.3 4.0 8.7 2.8 10.8 70.1 28.4 14.0 285 0.0 64.9 8.2 3.2 33.5 3.5 3.1 65.9 50.8 5.3 104 0.8 64.9 3.4 21.2 9.0 3.4 3.5 66.0 36.4 20.6 147 0.0 60.5 5.0 7.0 9.1 2.9 14.4 63.1 37.7 11.1 191 0.0 75.0 0.9 6.6 10.5 3.1 14.2 75.4 32.2 6.9 139 0.0 70.4 6.1 11.0 20.5 0.8 0.2 71.9 37.8 10.5 286 0.4 61.5 2.3 8.6 7.3 5.5 18.7 62.8 39.0 12.4 296 0.4 60.3 4.3 8.2 14.8 3.6 11.4 61.7 40.2 14.1 292 0.0 71.5 4.1 11.4 12.8 2.7 7.7 72.9 36.7 8.8 290 (*) (*) (*) (*) (*) (*) (*) (*) (*) (*) 15 1.0 60.5 3.2 19.0 9.3 5.0 19.5 61.2 52.2 8.1 118 0.0 65.8 4.6 7.8 13.0 2.7 8.0 66.9 34.9 10.3 344 0.0 74.2 3.9 6.7 20.7 0.4 4.3 77.5 33.8 16.0 105 (*) (*) (*) (*) (*) (*) (*) (*) (*) (*) 20 1.1 52.6 4.8 13.7 13.3 5.5 17.4 53.1 50.3 13.7 108 0.0 67.7 4.7 7.5 17.2 1.9 8.3 69.4 37.9 9.5 329 0.0 77.0 2.2 6.9 5.6 0.5 1.5 78.2 16.7 16.5 85 (0.0) (59.0) (2.2) (0.0) (11.2) (15.0) (20.9) (59.0) (44.2) (4.1) 40 0.8 54.5 5.1 16.7 14.1 10.4 19.1 55.0 60.5 10.4 156 0.0 64.0 6.4 7.8 12.4 0.5 9.8 64.8 34.6 11.5 123 0.0 68.1 3.5 12.8 12.6 0.4 9.3 69.5 38.6 11.2 105 0.0 76.2 0.8 2.3 21.9 1.0 1.8 78.5 26.3 13.3 132 0.0 72.2 5.9 7.4 1.5 0.0 3.0 74.7 17.7 10.4 66 0.0 66.3 4.4 8.2 13.5 2.9 11.0 67.7 38.1 9.9 470 (*) (*) (*) (*) (*) (*) (*) (*) (*) (*) 13 (0.0) (57.3) (3.2) (0.0) (23.1) (0.0) (2.8) (57.3) (29.1) (17.2) 24 (3.1) (55.9) (7.4) (3.7) (26.5) (13.0) (2.3) (58.2) (43.2) (25.6) 38 (0.0) (76.4) (0.0) (45.8) (3.2) (0.0) (7.2) (76.4) (56.2) (7.4) 36 (*) (*) (*) (*) (*) (*) (*) (*) (*) (*) 1 148 Serbia Multiple Indicator Cluster Survey 2014 and Serbia Roma Settlements Multiple Indicator Cluster Survey 2014148 Serbia Multiple Indicator Cluster Survey 2014 and Serbia Roma Settlements Multiple Indicator Cluster Survey 2014 Early Childhood Care and Education in Roma Settlements 6 percent of children age 36-59 months from Roma settlements attend an organised early childhood education programme (Table CD.1R). Attendance in urban areas is 6 percent and 3 percent in other areas. No gender differential exists, but differentials by mother’s education are seen. 28 percent of children whose mothers have secondary or higher education attend such programmes, while the figure drops for children of mothers who have primary or no education. The attendance to early childhood education programmes is higher among the older age group of children 48-59 months old (10 percent) than among smaller children of 36-47 months old (2 percent). Table CD.1R: Early childhood education Percentage of children age 36-59 months who are attending an organized early childhood education programme, Serbia Roma Settlements, 2014   Percentage of children age 36-59 months attending early childhood education1 Number of children age 36-59 months Total 5.7 640 Sex  Male 4.9 337 Female 6.5 303 Area  Urban 6.4 484 Other 3.2 156 Age of child  36-47 months 1.7 324 48-59 months 9.7 316 Mother’s education  None 7.5 173 Primary 2.4 421 Secondary or higher 27.9 46 Wealth index quintile  Poorest 5.7 201 Second 3.2 117 Middle 5.9 122 Fourth 7.6 117 Richest 5.8 83 Wealth index   Poorest 60 percent 5.1 439 Richest 40 percent 6.9 201 1 MICS indicator 6.1 — Attendance to early childhood education Reasons for Parental Not much to learn in early childhood education programme Disabled Low level of service Total 0.6 0.1 0.2 Sex  Male 0.4 0.2 0.2 Female 0.8 0.0 0.2 Area  Urban 0.7 0.0 0.0 Other 0.3 0.4 0.7 Age  36-47 months 0.1 0.2 0.3 48-59 months 1.1 0.0 0.0 Mother’s education  None 1.6 0.0 0.0 Primary 0.2 0.2 0.3 Secondary or higher (0.0) (0.0) (0.0) Father’s education  None 2.2 0.0 0.0 Primary 0.5 0.2 0.3 Secondary or higher 0.0 0.0 0.0 Father not in household 0.0 0.0 0.0 Wealth index quintiles  Poorest 0.8 0.0 0.0 Second 1.0 0.0 0.0 Middle 0.8 0.6 0.0 Fourth 0.0 0.0 1.0 Richest 0.0 0.0 0.0 Wealth index   Poorest 60 percent 0.8 0.2 0.0 Richest 40 percent 0.0 0.0 0.6 Monitoring the situation of children and women 149Monitoring the situation of children and women 149 Table CD.1A.R: Early child development  Percentage of children age 36-59 months by reasons for non-attendance to an early childhood education programme, Serbia Roma Settlements, 2014 non-attendance to an early childhood education programme Parental attitudes1 Access problems2 Other reasons3 Number of children age 36-59 months not attending an early childhood education programme attitudes Access problems Poor treatment The child is taken care of at home Both parents unemployed Overcrowded facility Costly services Other expences too high The facility is too far / No organized transport for children 2.8 43.9 4.7 1.6 24.2 21.9 2.9 46.6 42.6 19.3 596 1.9 45.9 6.7 2.2 22.8 23.3 1.3 47.8 42.5 19.6 316 3.9 41.7 2.5 1.0 25.8 20.3 4.8 45.2 42.7 19.0 280 0.9 44.9 5.4 1.8 26.7 23.9 0.3 45.4 44.9 17.7 447 8.6 41.0 2.9 0.9 16.8 16.0 10.8 50.0 35.8 24.3 149 4.1 45.8 5.6 1.1 20.9 22.8 3.4 49.8 40.9 18.4 310 1.4 41.8 3.8 2.2 27.8 20.9 2.4 43.0 44.4 20.3 285 3.8 34.8 2.3 1.7 31.0 31.1 5.6 37.9 52.9 18.0 157 2.7 47.3 6.1 1.5 22.3 19.5 2.1 50.0 40.4 18.3 406 (0.0) (45.4) (0.0) (2.9) (14.3) (6.6) (0.0) (45.4) (19.8) (39.5) 32 4.4 31.2 2.6 0.0 19.3 24.2 1.5 35.5 36.1 31.8 67 1.6 44.1 6.2 1.8 26.8 21.7 3.3 45.9 45.7 18.3 371 0.0 55.3 4.3 2.3 15.3 9.1 2.5 55.3 24.6 20.3 81 10.3 42.0 0.0 1.5 25.5 34.1 3.0 50.3 52.0 12.5 77 7.2 35.0 4.0 0.6 22.1 31.5 4.8 41.7 47.4 22.6 187 0.6 51.3 3.1 1.3 28.1 15.7 3.7 51.9 43.5 19.4 112 1.1 40.4 3.7 0.8 38.3 11.4 2.6 41.5 46.5 17.3 112 1.0 42.5 9.9 3.7 19.9 34.4 0.9 43.5 49.2 10.5 107 0.6 61.8 3.2 2.8 9.1 5.4 0.7 62.3 14.6 26.6 77 3.7 40.9 3.7 0.8 28.2 21.7 3.9 44.4 46.1 20.3 411 0.8 50.6 7.1 3.3 15.4 22.3 0.8 51.4 34.8 17.2 184 1 Survey-specific indicator — Non-attendance to early childhood education programme due to parental attitudes 2 Survey-specific indicator — Non-attendance to early childhood education programme due to access problems 3 Survey-specific indicator — Non-attendance to early childhood education programme due to other reasons ( ) Figures that are based on 25-49 unweighted cases In order to better understand the reasons for non-attendance to early childhood education programmes, additional survey- specific questions were introduced into the Questionnaire for Children Under Five. Table CD.1A.R indicates that the main reason for non-attendance to early childhood education programmes is that there is someone who can take care of the child at home (44 percent) and this is the most dominant response within the overall category of parental attitudes across different background characteristics. Access issues are reasons for non-attendance for 43 percent of children, where costly services (24 percent) and other too high expenses (22 percent) related to preschool programme attendance present the main obstacles preventing children from Roma settlements to attend these programmes. 150 Serbia Multiple Indicator Cluster Survey 2014 and Serbia Roma Settlements Multiple Indicator Cluster Survey 2014 Quality of Care 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 care is a major determinant of the child’s development during this period. In this context, engagement of adults in activities with children, the presence of books in the home for the child, and the conditions of care are important indicators of quality of home care. As set out in A World Fit for Children, “children should be physically healthy, mentally alert, emotionally secure, socially competent and ready to learn.”57 Information on a number of activities that support early learning was collected in the survey. These included the involvement of adults with children in the following activities: reading books or looking at picture books, telling stories, singing songs, taking children outside the home, compound or yard, playing with children, and spending time with children naming, counting, or drawing things. For 96 percent of children age 36-59 months, an adult household member engaged in four or more activities that promote learning and school readiness during the 3 days preceding the survey (Table CD.2). The mean number of activities that adults engaged with children was 5.5. The table also indicates that the father’s involvement (37 percent) in such activities was much lower compared to the mother’s involvement (90 percent). Overall, 10 percent of children age 36-59 months live without their biological father and 3 percent without their biological mother. There are no gender differentials in terms of the engagement of adults in activities with children; and there are no major differences across other background characteristics showing that the majority of children have the support of adults in activities that promote learning and school readiness. However, urban-other and regional differentials related to father’s involvement are very notable — the figure is as high as 47 percent in the Belgrade region, compared to 26 percent in South and Eastern Serbia. Fathers from urban areas and with higher education are more involved in the learning activities of their children than those from other areas and those less educated. Fathers were more engaged in activities with male children (41 percent) compared to female children (32 percent). 57 UNICEF, A World Fit For Children, Adopted by the UN General Assembly at the 27th Special Session, 10 May 2002, p. 2. Percentage of children with whom adult household members have engaged in four or more activities1 Mean number of activities with adult household members Total 95.5 5.5 Sex  Male 95.0 5.5 Female 96.0 5.5 Region  Belgrade 98.4 5.8 Vojvodina 93.6 5.4 Sumadija and Western Serbia 96.0 5.4 Southern and Eastern Serbia 92.2 5.4 Area  Urban 96.7 5.6 Other 93.2 5.3 Age  36-47 months 95.9 5.5 48-59 months 95.1 5.5 Mother’s educationa  None (*) (*) Primary 90.4 5.0 Secondary 94.8 5.5 Higher 98.5 5.7 Father’s education  None (*) (*) Primary 83.3 4.7 Secondary 95.6 5.5 Higher 99.1 5.7 Father not in the household 96.8 5.6 Missing/DK (*) (*) Wealth index quintiles  Poorest 87.3 4.8 Second 96.5 5.5 Middle 95.3 5.6 Fourth 97.0 5.7 Richest 97.8 5.7 Ethnicity of household head  Serbian 96.2 5.6 Hungarian (91.5) (5.3) Bosnian (92.9) (4.8) Roma (77.3) (4.5) Other (97.7) (5.1) Does not want to declare (*) (*) Missing/DK (*) (*) Monitoring the situation of children and women 151 Table CD.2: Support for learning Percentage of children age 36-59 months with whom adult household members engaged in activities that promote learning and school readiness during the last three days, and engagement in such activities by biological fathers and mothers, Serbia, 2014 Percentage of children living with their: Number of children age 36-59 months Percentage of children with whom biological fathers have engaged in four or more activities2 Mean number of activities with biological fathers Number of children age 36-59 months living with their biological fathers Percentage of children with whom biological mothers have engaged in four or more activities3 Mean number of activities with biological mothers Number of children age 36-59 months living with their biological mothers Biological father Biological mother 90.5 97.3 1200 36.5 2.9 1086 89.6 5.2 1167 89.2 97.4 631 40.8 3.1 563 90.0 5.1 614 91.8 97.1 570 31.7 2.7 523 89.1 5.2 553 87.1 97.6 386 46.8 3.2 336 93.5 5.5 376 91.5 98.1 283 40.1 3.0 259 88.0 5.1 278 92.7 96.1 309 27.8 2.7 286 88.4 5.0 296 91.8 97.3 223 26.2 2.5 205 86.3 4.8 217 90.0 98.1 780 42.7 3.1 702 91.8 5.3 765 91.2 95.6 421 25.1 2.4 384 85.5 4.8 402 91.4 96.9 545 39.5 3.0 498 89.0 5.2 528 89.7 97.6 655 34.1 2.8 588 90.0 5.1 640 (*) (*) 15 (*) (*) 15 (*) (*) 15 89.8 92.9 143 22.6 2.2 128 74.7 4.3 133 91.1 96.4 603 33.8 2.8 549 89.5 5.1 581 89.4 99.7 440 45.0 3.3 393 96.4 5.6 438 (*) (*) 20 (*) (*) 20 (*) (*) 20 100.0 97.3 125 22.6 2.2 125 68.4 4.2 122 100.0 99.1 602 37.5 3.1 602 91.2 5.2 596 100.0 99.6 339 51.3 3.6 339 97.1 5.5 338 0.0 80.3 115 na na na 84.9 4.9 92 (*) (*) 0 (*) (*) 0 (*) (*) 0 90.9 97.8 174 20.2 2.1 158 73.0 4.3 170 87.5 94.6 184 33.1 2.7 161 90.7 5.1 174 87.2 93.1 187 32.6 2.7 163 86.1 5.0 174 96.1 98.2 284 47.6 3.4 273 92.9 5.3 279 89.0 99.7 371 39.3 3.0 330 96.0 5.5 370 90.0 97.4 1023 38.3 3.0 921 90.6 5.2 996 (84.9) (93.9) 30 (45.8) (3.0) 25 (87.5) (5.2) 28 (84.3) (85.7) 30 (19.0) (2.1) 25 (88.2) (4.4) 26 (97.1) (100.0) 42 (19.7) (2.1) 40 (51.5) (3.7) 42 (96.0) (100.0) 45 (33.0) (2.7) 43 (96.5) (5.0) 45 (*) (*) 31 (*) (*) 30 (*) (*) 31 (*) (*) 1 (*) (*) 1 (*) (*) 1 1 MICS indicator 6.2 — Support for learning 2 MICS Indicator 6.3 — Father’s support for learning 3 MICS Indicator 6.4 — Mother’s support for learning na: not applicable a The background characteristic “Mother’s education” refers to the education level of the respondent to the Questionnaire for Children Under Five, and covers both mothers and primary caretakers, who are interviewed when the mother is not listed in the same household. Since indicator 6.4 reports on the biological mother’s support for learning, this background characteristic refers to only the educational levels of biological mothers when calculated for the indicator in question. ( ) Figures that are based on 25-49 unweighted cases (*) Figures that are based on less than 25 unweighted cases 152 Serbia Multiple Indicator Cluster Survey 2014 and Serbia Roma Settlements Multiple Indicator Cluster Survey 2014 The questions58 on the involvement of adults in supporting early learning activities was also asked in relation to younger children age 12-35 months. The table CD.2A shows similar patterns of adults’ engagement, with 91 percent of children this age with whom adults engaged in four or more activities. Mother’s engagement was much higher (83 percent) than fathers’ engagement (34 percent). Both parents are less engaged in at least four activities that promote learning with younger children age 12-23 months (77 percent of mothers and 29 percent of fathers) than with children aged 24-35 months old (91 percent of mothers and 40 percent of fathers). 58 This data is based on a survey-specific customization of the Questionnaire for Children Under Five. Percentage of children with whom adult household members have engaged in four or more activities1 Mean number of activities with adult household members Total 91.4 5.1 Sex  Male 91.6 5.1 Female 91.1 5.2 Region  Belgrade 95.2 5.5 Vojvodina 90.5 5.0 Sumadija and Western Serbia 90.0 5.1 Southern and Eastern Serbia 90.0 5.1 Area  Urban 92.8 5.2 Other 89.0 5.0 Age  12-23 months 86.5 4.8 24-35 months 96.5 5.5 Mother’s educationa  None (*) (*) Primary 80.1 4.6 Secondary 92.8 5.1 Higher 94.9 5.5 Father’s education  None (*) (*) Primary 74.7 4.5 Secondary 91.5 5.1 Higher 97.6 5.5 Father not in the household 96.7 5.3 Wealth index quintiles  Poorest 82.4 4.5 Second 88.8 5.0 Middle 93.5 5.3 Fourth 94.6 5.3 Richest 95.5 5.5 Ethnicity of household head  Serbian 92.3 5.2 Hungarian (94.1) (5.2) Bosnian (75.8) (4.1) Roma (75.4) (4.3) Other (94.4) (5.2) Does not want to declare (*) (*) Monitoring the situation of children and women 153 Table CD.2A: Support for learning for children age 12-35 months Percentage of children age 12-35 months with whom adult household members engaged in activities that promote learning and school readiness during the last three days, and engagement in such activities by biological fathers and mothers, Serbia, 2014 Percentage of children living with their: Number of children age 12-35 months Percentage of children with whom biological fathers have engaged in four or more activities2 Mean number of activities with biological fathers Number of children age 12-35 months living with their biological fathers Percentage of children with whom biological mothers have engaged in four or more activities3 Mean number of activities with biological mothers Number of children age 12-35 months living with their biological mothers Biological father Biological mother 95.0 96.5 953 34.2 2.8 906 83.4 4.8 920 96.0 94.2 491 32.8 2.8 471 81.7 4.6 463 94.0 98.9 462 35.7 2.9 435 85.3 4.9 457 92.7 98.4 223 47.3 3.4 207 83.2 4.9 220 95.4 90.5 280 36.3 2.7 267 78.5 4.4 253 95.9 99.0 277 26.9 2.6 266 87.7 5.0 274 96.1 99.7 173 25.5 2.7 166 84.8 4.9 173 93.8 94.8 586 36.9 2.9 550 83.6 4.7 556 96.9 99.1 368 30.0 2.7 356 83.1 4.8 364 94.8 94.3 489 28.5 2.5 464 76.6 4.4 461 95.2 98.8 465 40.2 3.2 442 90.6 5.1 459 (*) (*) 11 (*) (*) 10 (*) (*) 11 94.5 98.1 122 16.6 2.2 115 75.0 4.4 120 94.9 94.2 500 30.9 2.6 474 82.8 4.7 471 95.6 99.3 321 46.9 3.5 307 89.1 5.1 319 (*) (*) 15 (*) (*) 15 (*) (*) 15 100.0 100.0 102 22.3 2.2 102 70.4 4.3 102 100.0 95.2 555 31.4 2.8 555 82.8 4.7 528 100.0 99.1 233 55.0 3.8 233 89.9 5.1 231 0.0 89.9 47 na na na (87.0) (4.8) 43 95.9 85.8 174 16.5 2.0 166 64.2 3.8 149 94.5 98.6 161 27.8 2.6 152 86.3 4.8 158 93.1 98.3 206 37.9 3.0 192 85.2 5.0 203 93.6 98.9 190 37.2 2.8 178 91.7 5.1 188 97.8 99.4 223 46.7 3.5 218 87.7 5.0 221 94.6 96.0 809 35.2 2.9 765 83.6 4.8 777 (97.3) (96.0) 31 (48.3) (3.0) 30 (92.1) (5.0) 30 (95.6) (100.0) 24 (12.9) (2.0) 23 (75.8) (3.9) 24 (95.6) (100.0) 34 (19.6) (1.9) 32 (63.7) (3.9) 34 (100.0) (100.0) 51 (29.3) (2.9) 51 (91.8) (5.0) 51 (*) (*) 4 (*) (*) 4 8.0 (*) 4 1 Survey-specific indicator — Support for learning (children age 12-35 months) 2 Survey-specific indicator — Father’s support for learning (children age 12-35 months) 3 Survey-specific indicator — Mother’s support for learning (children age 12-35 months) na: not applicable a The background characteristic “Mother’s education” refers to the education level of the respondent to the Questionnaire for Children Under Five, and covers both mothers and primary caretakers, who are interviewed when the mother is not listed in the same household. Since survey-specific indicator “Mother’s support for learning (children age 12-35 months)” reports on the biological mother’s support for learning, this background characteristic refers to only the educational levels of biological mothers when calculated for the indicator in question. ( ) Figures that are based on 25-49 unweighted cases (*) Figures that are based on less than 25 unweighted cases 154 Serbia Multiple Indicator Cluster Survey 2014 and Serbia Roma Settlements Multiple Indicator Cluster Survey 2014 Exposure to books in the early years not only provides the child with greater understanding of the nature of print, but may also give the child opportunities to see others reading, such as older siblings doing school work. The presence of books is important for later school performance. The mothers/caretakers of all children under 5 were asked about the number of children’s books or picture books they have for the child and types of playthings children play with in their homes. In Serbia, only 72 percent of children age 0-59 months live in households where at least 3 children’s books are present (Table CD.3). The proportion of children with 10 or more books declines to 55 percent. While no gender differentials are observed, a higher proportion of urban children have access to children’s books (75 percent) than those living in households in other areas (67 percent). The presence of children’s books is positively correlated with the child’s age; in the homes of 89 percent of children age 24-59 months, there are 3 or more children’s books, while the figure is 44 percent for children age 0-23 months. Socioeconomic status positively influences the presence of children’s books as only 44 percent of children from the poorest households have 3 or more books, compared with 83 percent of children from the richest households. A positive association also exists in terms of mothers’ education. When looking at the availability of 10 or more children’s books or picture books in households with children age 0-59 months, similar patterns and disparities are observed. Table CD.3 also shows that 75 percent of children age 0-59 months have 2 or more types of playthings to play with in their homes. The types of playthings included in the questionnaires were homemade toys (such as dolls and cars, or other toys made at home), toys that came from a store, and household objects (such as pots and bowls) or objects and materials found outside the home (such as sticks, rocks, animal shells, or leaves). It is interesting to note that 94 percent of children play with toys that come from a store, 72 percent play with household objects or objects found outside, while 38 percent play with homemade toys. There are no differences observed in relation to gender, type of settlement or region, mother’s education or socioeconomic status. The only difference observed is related to the age of children where 91 percent of children 24-59 months of age have 2 or more types of playthings to play with compared with 50 percent of children 0-23 months of age. Monitoring the situation of children and women 155 Table CD.3: Learning materials Percentage of children under age 5 by numbers of children’s books present in the household, and by playthings that child plays with, Serbia, 2014 Percentage of children living in households that have for the child: Percentage of children who play with: Number of children under age 53 or more children’s books1 10 or more children’s books Homemade toys Toys from a shop/ manufactured toys Household objects/objects found outside Two or more types of playthings2 Total 71.9 55.1 38.4 93.9 72.0 75.0 2720 Sex  Male 71.3 53.4 39.9 93.8 72.9 75.7 1400 Female 72.4 56.8 36.9 94.1 71.0 74.4 1320 Region  Belgrade 84.1 71.4 44.9 94.4 77.6 79.5 733 Vojvodina 62.9 46.5 44.7 91.7 70.3 73.8 753 Sumadija and Western Serbia 73.9 54.2 31.3 96.1 70.3 73.8 706 Southern and Eastern Serbia 65.1 45.6 30.2 93.5 68.9 72.4 528 Area  Urban 74.7 60.4 42.5 93.9 73.3 76.3 1722 Other 67.0 45.8 31.5 93.9 69.8 72.8 998 Age  0-23 months 44.2 26.0 20.2 86.9 46.3 49.8 1055 24-59 months 89.4 73.4 50.0 98.4 88.3 91.1 1665 Mother’s education  None (7.3) (7.3) (36.4) (66.1) (73.1) (71.2) 32 Primary 50.6 25.3 40.4 92.3 72.1 78.4 309 Secondary 71.9 53.4 36.2 95.1 71.0 74.7 1380 Higher 80.4 68.0 41.0 93.7 73.4 74.7 999 Wealth index quintiles  Poorest 44.1 20.5 37.2 89.9 76.0 78.0 411 Second 70.3 48.1 39.2 95.8 74.3 79.5 425 Middle 71.6 51.7 34.8 92.2 65.5 68.4 522 Fourth 78.9 66.0 36.6 96.4 70.0 74.0 609 Richest 82.5 71.3 42.7 94.3 74.7 76.4 752 Ethnicity of household head  Serbian 74.9 58.7 39.1 94.2 72.5 75.5 2306 Hungarian 70.3 48.6 41.9 98.5 65.1 70.6 83 Bosnian 44.8 25.5 10.4 96.6 68.7 69.8 61 Roma 29.7 11.8 42.1 79.0 67.3 71.7 91 Other 54.4 28.6 39.2 94.3 65.2 67.5 138 Does not want to declare (*) (*) (*) (*) (*) (*) 40 Missing/DK (*) (*) (*) (*) (*) (*) 1 1 MICS indicator 6.5 — Availability of children’s books 2 MICS indicator 6.6 — Availability of playthings ( ) Figures that are based on 25-49 unweighted cases (*) Figures that are based on less than 25 unweighted cases 156 Serbia Multiple Indicator Cluster Survey 2014 and Serbia Roma Settlements Multiple Indicator Cluster Survey 2014 Leaving children alone or in the presence of other young children is known to increase the risk of injuries.59 In MICS, two questions were asked to find out whether children age 0-59 months were left alone during the week preceding the interview, and whether children were left in the care of other children under 10 years of age. Table CD.4 shows that only 1 percent of children age 0-59 months were left in the care of other children, while 1 percent were left alone during the week preceding the interview. Combining the two care indicators, it is calculated that a total of 1 percent of children were left with inadequate care during the past week, either by being left alone or in the care of another child. Given the generally small percentages of children left with inadequate care there are no major differences across different observation domains. Table CD.4: Inadequate care 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, Serbia, 2014 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 Total 0.6 1.3 1.3 2720 Sex  Male 0.8 1.6 1.7 1400 Female 0.4 0.9 1.0 1320 Region  Belgrade 0.9 1.0 1.0 733 Vojvodina 0.1 1.5 1.6 753 Sumadija and Western Serbia 1.2 1.6 1.8 706 Southern and Eastern Serbia 0.2 0.8 0.8 528 Area  Urban 0.9 1.2 1.3 1722 Other 0.1 1.4 1.4 998 Age  0-23 months 1.1 1.7 1.7 1055 24-59 months 0.3 1.0 1.1 1665 Mother’s education  None (0.0) (2.7) (2.7) 32 Primary 0.2 2.7 2.9 309 Secondary 0.1 0.7 0.8 1380 Higher 1.4 1.6 1.6 999 Wealth index quintiles  Poorest 0.3 2.2 2.5 411 Second 0.0 0.6 0.6 425 Middle 0.2 1.1 1.3 522 Fourth 0.0 0.3 0.3 609 Richest 1.9 2.0 2.0 752 Ethnicity of household head  Serbian 0.7 1.2 1.2 2306 Hungarian 0.0 4.2 4.2 83 Bosnian 2.3 2.8 5.1 61 Roma 0.0 2.7 2.7 91 Other 0.0 0.0 0.0 138 Does not want to declare (*) (*) (*) 40 Missing/DK (*) (*) (*) 1 1 MICS indicator 6.7 — Inadequate care ( ) Figures that are based on 25-49 unweighted cases (*) Figures that are based on less than 25 unweighted cases 59 Grossman, David C. (2000). The History of Injury Control and the Epidemiology of Child and Adolescent Injuries. The Future of Children, 10(1), 23-52. Monitoring the situation of children and women 157Monitoring the situation of children and women 157 Quality of Care in Roma Settlements For almost two-thirds (68 percent) of children 36-59 months old, an adult household member engaged in four or more activities that promote learning and school readiness during the 3 days preceding the survey (Table CD.2R). The average number of activities that adults engaged with children was 4.0. The table indicates that mothers were engaged in the minimum number of early learning activities with 48 percent of children while the father’s involvement in such activities was very low at 17 percent. Table CD.2R: Support for learning Percentage of children age 36-59 months with whom adult household members engaged in activities that promote learning and school readiness during the last three days, and engagement in such activities by biological fathers and mothers, Serbia Roma Settlements, 2014 Percentage of children with whom adult household members have engaged in four or more activities1 Mean number of activities with adult household members Percentage of chil- dren living with their: Number of children age 36-59 months Percentage of children with whom biological fathers have engaged in four or more activities2 Mean number of activities with biological fathers Number of children age 36-59 months living with their biological fathers Percentage of children with whom biological mothers have engaged in four or more activities3 Mean number of activities with biological mothers Number of children age 36-59 months living with their biological mothers Biological father Biological mother Total 68.0 4.0 87.7 95.9 640 17.3 1.8 561 48.3 3.3 614 Sex  Male 61.9 3.8 89.4 94.9 337 18.1 1.8 301 42.9 3.1 320 Female 74.8 4.3 85.8 97.0 303 16.6 1.7 260 54.2 3.5 294 Area  Urban 66.7 3.9 89.2 95.8 484 17.9 1.8 432 46.9 3.3 464 Other 72.2 4.3 83.1 96.1 156 15.7 1.6 129 52.4 3.5 150 Age  36-47 months 64.9 3.9 88.2 96.2 324 14.8 1.7 286 44.5 3.2 312 48-59 months 71.3 4.1 87.1 95.6 316 20.0 1.9 276 52.1 3.5 302 Mother’s educationa  None 48.5 3.4 87.9 98.6 173 7.8 1.2 152 37.1 2.8 170 Primary 73.0 4.1 86.9 95.2 421 17.9 1.8 366 49.2 3.4 401 Secondary or higher 96.2 5.1 94.4 92.2 46 (47.9) (3.1) 44 (81.4) (4.4) 43 Father’s education  None 49.0 3.5 100.0 100.0 69 18.2 1.7 69 40.3 3.1 69 Primary 69.9 4.0 100.0 96.3 395 16.3 1.8 395 49.1 3.3 381 Secondary or higher 81.0 4.5 100.0 96.3 97 34.6 2.8 97 53.5 3.8 93 Father not in the household 59.5 3.8 0.0 89.7 79 na na na 44.7 3.1 71 Wealth index quintiles  Poorest 50.6 3.4 80.9 95.7 201 10.4 1.3 163 37.0 2.8 193 Second 69.2 4.0 83.4 96.7 117 13.3 1.5 97 52.9 3.3 113 Middle 74.8 4.2 92.0 95.0 122 22.2 2.2 112 45.1 3.3 115 Fourth 77.9 4.5 92.7 97.1 117 19.0 2.0 109 59.2 4.0 114 Richest 84.8 4.6 96.6 94.8 83 30.2 2.5 81 58.2 3.7 79 Wealth index   Poorest 60 percent 62.2 3.8 84.6 95.8 439 14.5 1.6 372 43.5 3.1 421 Richest 40 percent 80.7 4.5 94.3 96.1 201 23.7 2.2 189 58.8 3.8 193 1 MICS indicator 6.2 — Support for learning 2 MICS Indicator 6.3 — Father’s support for learning 3 MICS Indicator 6.4 — Mother’s support for learning na: not applicable a The background characteristic “Mother’s education” refers to the education level of the respondent to the Questionnaire for Children Under Five, and covers both mothers and primary caretakers, who are interviewed when the mother is not listed in the same household. Since indicator 6.4 reports on the biological mother’s support for learning, this background characteristic refers to only the educational levels of biological mothers when calculated for the indicator in question. ( ) Figures that are based on 25-49 unweighted cases 158 Serbia Multiple Indicator Cluster Survey 2014 and Serbia Roma Settlements Multiple Indicator Cluster Survey 2014158 Serbia Multiple Indicator Cluster Survey 2014 and Serbia Roma Settlements Multiple Indicator Cluster Survey 2014 Findings indicate that there are some gender differentials in terms of engagement of adults in activities with children, as adults engaged with female children more (75 percent) than with boys (62 percent). A similar pattern is observed in mothers’ engagement as well (54 percent for girls and 43 percent for boys). Strong differentials by mother’s education and socioeconomic status are also observed. Adult engagement in activities with children was greatest with children whose mothers have higher education (96 percent) and lowest for children whose mothers are without education (49 percent). Engagement of adults was higher with children living in the richest households (85 percent) as opposed to those living in the poorest households (51 percent). Father’s involvement is low across the disaggregation categories and showed a similar pattern in terms of adults’ engagement in such activities. Table CD.2A.R: Support for learning for children age 12-35 months Percentage of children age 12-35 months with whom adult household members engaged in activities that promote learning and school readiness during the last three days, and engagement in such activities by biological fathers and mothers, Serbia Roma Settlements, 2014 Percentage of children with whom adult household members have engaged in four or more activities1 Mean number of activities with adult household members Percentage of children living with their: Number of children age 12-35 months Percentage of children with whom biological fathers have engaged in four or more activities2 Biological father Biological mother Total 68.8 3.9 90.2 96.6 599 17.8 Sex  Male 71.6 3.9 89.5 95.4 294 18.0 Female 66.1 3.8 90.8 97.8 305 17.5 Area  Urban 70.2 3.9 89.9 96.8 448 20.6 Other 64.4 3.7 90.9 96.1 151 9.3 Age  12-23 months 63.9 3.6 91.3 96.1 318 14.3 24-35 months 74.3 4.2 88.8 97.3 281 21.7 Mother’s educationa  None 50.8 3.4 87.4 98.6 138 4.1 Primary 73.2 4.0 90.4 98.3 400 19.7 Secondary or higher (79.9) (4.0) (94.8) (81.3) 61 (35.8) Father’s education  None 56.1 3.5 100.0 100.0 73 26.1 Primary 70.1 3.9 100.0 98.7 384 14.1 Secondary or higher 84.5 4.4 100.0 88.0 83 40.0 Father not in the household 53.5 3.4 0.0 91.0 59 na Wealth index quintiles  Poorest 51.7 3.3 82.8 99.1 173 13.2 Second 70.1 3.8 93.9 97.7 138 7.9 Middle 63.5 3.7 94.5 98.9 117 11.2 Fourth 87.5 4.6 91.9 86.5 95 38.8 Richest 90.0 4.6 91.2 98.1 75 29.9 Wealth index  Poorest 60 percent 60.9 3.6 89.6 98.6 428 11.0 Richest 40 percent 88.6 4.6 91.6 91.7 170 34.8 1 Survey-specific indicator — Support for learning (children age 12-35 months) 2 Survey-specific indicator — Father’s support for learning (children age 12-35 months) 3 Survey-specific indicator — Mother’s support for learning (children age 12-35 months) na: not applicable a The background characteristic “Mother’s education” refers to the education level of the respondent to the Questionnaire for Children Under Five, and covers both mothers and primary caretakers, who are interviewed when the mother is not listed in the same household. Since survey-specific indicator “Mother’s support for learning (children age 12-35 months)” reports on the biological mother’s support for learning, this background characteristic refers to only the educational levels of biological mothers when calculated for the indicator in question. ( ) Figures that are based on 25-49 unweighted cases Monitoring the situation of children and women 159Monitoring the situation of children and women 159 Mean number of activities with biological fathers Number of children age 12-35 months living with their biological fathers Percentage of children with whom biological mothers have engaged in four or more activities3 Mean number of activities with biological mothers Number of children age 12-35 months living with their biological mothers 1.9 540 50.3 3.3 578 1.9 263 49.7 3.3 280 1.9 277 51.0 3.4 298 1.9 403 50.4 3.4 434 1.7 137 50.1 3.3 145 1.7 290 43.8 3.0 305 2.1 249 57.8 3.7 273 1.2 120 38.9 2.9 136 2.0 361 52.6 3.5 393 (2.5) 58 (61.4) (3.2) 50 2.1 73 44.5 3.2 73 1.8 384 52.4 3.4 379 3.1 83 53.3 3.4 73 na na 40.1 3.0 54 1.5 143 41.3 3.0 171 1.6 130 53.4 3.3 135 1.9 111 47.5 3.2 116 2.4 87 51.9 3.5 82 2.6 69 67.8 4.2 74 1.6 384 46.9 3.2 422 2.5 156 59.0 3.8 156 Table CD.2A.R shows that engagement60 of adults in early learning activities of smaller children (12-35 months) is almost at the same level as for children age 36-59 months (69 percent) and shows similar patterns across the background characteristics. In Roma settlements in Serbia, only 12 percent of children age 0-59 months live in households where at least 3 children’s books are present (Table CD.3R). The proportion of children with 10 or more books declines to 2 percent. While no gender differentials are observed, mother’s education and socioeconomic status play a role. The proportion of under-5 children who have 3 or more children’s books is 5 percent for children whose mothers are without education, compared to 21 percent for children whose mothers have secondary or higher education. Only 4 percent of children from the poorest households have at least 3 books while the percentage rises to 24 percent for children from the richest households. The presence of children’s books is positively correlated with the child’s age; in the homes of 16 percent of children age 24-59 months, there are 3 or more children’s books, while the figure is 6 percent for children age 0-23 months. 60 This data is based on a survey-specific customization of the Questionnaire for Children Under Five. 160 Serbia Multiple Indicator Cluster Survey 2014 and Serbia Roma Settlements Multiple Indicator Cluster Survey 2014160 Serbia Multiple Indicator Cluster Survey 2014 and Serbia Roma Settlements Multiple Indicator Cluster Survey 2014 When children who have 10 or more children’s books or picture books are taken into account, similar patterns of disparities are observed. Table CD.3R also shows that only half (53 percent) of children age 0-59 months had 2 or more types of playthings to play with in their homes. The majority of children (80 percent) play with toys that come from a store, 53 percent play with household objects and 21 percent with homemade toys. The proportion of children who have 2 or more types of playthings to play with is 51 percent among male children and 56 percent among female children. No urban-other differentials are observed in this respect. Notable differences are observed in terms of mother’s education — 70 percent of children whose mothers have secondary or higher education have 2 or more types of playthings, while the proportion is 44 percent for children whose mothers have no education. Differences are notable by socioeconomic status of the households as well. While 41 percent of children from the poorest households have 2 or more types of playthings, this is the case for 65 percent of children from the richest households. Table CD.3R: Learning materials Percentage of children under age 5 by numbers of children’s books present in the household, and by playthings that child plays with, Serbia Roma Settlements, 2014   Percentage of children living in households that have for the child: Percentage of children who play with: Number of children under age 53 or more children’s books1 10 or more children’s books Homemade toys Toys from a shop/ manufactured toys Household objects/objects found outside Two or more types of playthings2 Total 11.9 2.4 20.7 80.2 53.3 53.2 1515 Sex  Male 10.9 2.4 19.4 78.3 50.8 50.8 787 Female 13.1 2.4 22.0 82.1 56.1 55.7 728 Area  Urban 11.4 2.5 20.2 81.8 51.8 52.8 1135 Other 13.7 1.9 22.1 75.3 57.9 54.4 380 Age  0-23 months 6.0 0.7 10.7 71.2 31.8 32.9 594 24-59 months 15.8 3.5 27.1 85.9 67.2 66.3 921 Mother’s education  None 4.7 0.3 19.9 73.2 45.7 43.8 361 Primary 13.4 2.8 20.9 81.4 54.9 54.4 1031 Secondary or higher 21.1 5.0 20.5 90.5 62.0 70.4 123 Wealth index quintiles  Poorest 4.2 0.4 16.9 63.5 51.2 41.2 436 Second 10.0 1.3 19.4 85.7 48.3 50.7 317 Middle 14.4 1.7 23.2 82.5 51.8 54.1 300 Fourth 15.1 3.0 26.6 91.5 60.4 66.3 254 Richest 23.7 8.6 19.4 89.3 59.0 64.7 208 Wealth index  Poorest 60 percent 8.8 1.0 19.5 75.6 50.5 47.7 1053 Richest 40 percent 19.0 5.5 23.4 90.5 59.8 65.6 462 1 MICS indicator 6.5 — Availability of children’s books 2 MICS indicator 6.6 — Availability of playthings Monitoring the situation of children and women 161Monitoring the situation of children and women 161 Leaving children alone or in the presence of other young children is known to increase the risk of injuries.61 In MICS, two questions were asked to find out whether children age 0-59 months were left alone during the week preceding the interview, and whether children were left in the care of other children under 10 years of age. Table CD.4R shows that 3 percent of children age 0-59 months were left in the care of other children, while 1 percent were left alone during the week preceding the interview. Combining the two care indicators, it is calculated that 4 percent of children were left with inadequate care during the week preceding the survey, either by being left alone or in the care of another child. There were no clear differentials by background characteristics. Table CD.4R: Inadequate care 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, Serbia Roma Settlements, 2014   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 Total 0.9 3.0 3.6 1515 Sex  Male 1.0 3.5 4.0 787 Female 0.8 2.5 3.1 728 Area  Urban 0.7 3.1 3.5 1135 Other 1.5 2.6 3.8 380 Age  0-23 months 0.7 2.2 2.4 594 24-59 months 1.1 3.5 4.3 921 Mother’s education  None 0.5 3.9 4.2 361 Primary 0.9 2.7 3.3 1031 Secondary or higher 2.3 3.1 3.9 123 Wealth index quintiles  Poorest 0.8 4.0 4.1 436 Second 1.3 3.8 4.4 317 Middle 0.2 1.7 1.7 300 Fourth 1.7 1.1 2.8 254 Richest 0.7 4.0 4.7 208 Wealth index   Poorest 60 percent 0.8 3.3 3.5 1053 Richest 40 percent 1.2 2.4 3.6 462 1 MICS indicator 6.7 — Inadequate care 61 Grossman, David C. (2000). The History of Injury Control and the Epidemiology of Child and Adolescent Injuries. The Future of Children, 10(1), 23-52. 162 Serbia Multiple Indicator Cluster Survey 2014 and Serbia Roma Settlements Multiple Indicator Cluster Survey 2014 Developmental Status of Children Early childhood development is defined as an orderly, predictable process along a continuous path, in which a child learns to handle more complicated levels of moving, thinking, speaking, feeling and relating to others. Physical growth, literacy and numeracy skills, socio-emotional development and readiness to learn are vital domains of a child’s overall development, which is a basis for overall human development.62 A 10-item module was used to calculate the Early Child Development Index (ECDI). The primary purpose of the ECDI is to inform public policy regarding the developmental status of children in Serbia. The index is based on selected milestones that children are expected to achieve by ages 3 and 4. The 10 items are used to determine if children are developmentally on track in four domains:  Literacy-numeracy: Children are identified as being developmentally on track based on whether they can identify/name at least ten letters of the alphabet, whether they can read at least four simple, popular words, and whether they know the name and recognize the symbols of all numbers from 1 to 10. If at least two of these are true, then the child is considered developmentally on track.  Physical: If the child can pick up a small object with two fingers, like a stick or a rock from the ground and/or the mother/caretaker does not indicate that the child is sometimes too sick to play, then the child is regarded as being developmentally on track in the physical domain.  Social-emotional: Children are considered to be developmentally on track if two of the following are true: If the child gets along well with other children, if the child does not kick, bite, or hit other children and if the child does not get distracted easily.  Learning: If the child follows simple directions on how to do something correctly and/or when given something to do, is able to do it independently, then the child is considered to be developmentally on track in this domain. ECDI is then calculated as the percentage of children who are developmentally on track in at least three of these four domains. The results are presented in Table CD.5. In Serbia, 95 percent of children age 36-59 months are developmentally on track. As expected, ECDI is slightly higher in the older age group (97 percent among children 48-59 months old compared to 93 percent among those 36-47 months old), since children mature more skills with increasing age. Somewhat higher ECDI is seen in children attending an early childhood education programme at 98 percent compared to 92 percent among those who are not attending. Children living in poorest households have lower ECDI (91 percent) compared to children living in richest households (98 percent of children developmentally on track). ECDI is positively associated with mother’s education level. The analysis of four domains of child development shows that 98 percent of children are on track in the learning domain, 99 percent in the physical domain and 95 percent in the social-emotional domain. A much lower proportion of children age 36-59 months is on track (35 percent) in the literacy-numeracy domain. In the literacy-numeracy and social-emotional domains, the higher score is associated with children living in urban areas, among those whose mothers have higher education, and those attending an early childhood education programme. 62 Shonkoff J, and Phillips D, (eds), From neurons to neighborhoods: the science of early childhood development, Committee on Integrating the Science of Early Childhood Development, National Research Council, 2000. Monitoring the situation of children and women 163 Table CD.5: Early child development index 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, Serbia, 2014 Percentage of children age 36-59 months who are developmentally on track for indicated domains Early child development index score1 Percentage of children not on track in any of the four domains Number of children age 36-59 monthsLiteracy- numeracy Physical Social- Emotional Learning Total 35.4 98.5 94.6 98.4 95.1 1.4 1200 Sex  Male 36.3 98.8 94.6 98.7 95.1 1.1 631 Female 34.5 98.1 94.7 98.1 95.1 1.9 570 Region  Belgrade 42.4 99.3 94.4 99.3 95.3 0.7 386 Vojvodina 34.6 98.8 92.5 98.6 92.8 1.2 283 Sumadija and Western Serbia 33.8 97.5 95.6 97.3 95.6 2.3 309 Southern and Eastern Serbia 26.7 98.2 96.3 98.2 96.9 1.8 223 Area  Urban 40.1 99.0 96.4 99.0 96.8 0.9 780 Other 26.7 97.6 91.3 97.3 92.0 2.4 421 Age  36-47 months 20.9 96.8 92.1 96.7 92.8 3.2 545 48-59 months 47.5 99.9 96.7 99.8 97.0 0.0 655 Attendance to early childhood education  Attending 43.0 99.9 97.5 99.9 98.1 0.0 603 Not attending 27.7 97.1 91.7 96.9 92.0 2.9 597 Mother’s education  None (*) (*) (*) (*) (*) (*) 15 Primary 22.5 97.7 89.1 97.7 90.2 2.3 143 Secondary 32.4 98.2 94.0 98.2 94.6 1.7 603 Higher 44.6 99.2 97.5 98.9 97.7 0.8 440 Wealth index quintiles  Poorest 11.5 97.9 89.8 97.9 90.8 2.1 174 Second 31.5 98.3 92.9 98.3 93.8 1.7 184 Middle 39.1 96.7 91.4 96.7 92.6 2.9 187 Fourth 46.6 99.3 97.0 98.9 96.7 0.7 284 Richest 38.1 99.2 97.6 99.2 97.8 0.8 371 Ethnicity of household head  Serbian 37.8 98.5 95.2 98.4 95.7 1.4 1023 Hungarian (35.2) (100.0) (95.1) (100.0) (95.1) (0.0) 30 Bosnian (22.6) (92.9) (82.2) (92.9) (82.2) (7.1) 30 Roma (17.6) (98.0) (81.8) (98.0) (83.6) (2.0) 42 Other (25.8) (100.0) (97.2) (100.0) (97.2) (0.0) 45 Does not want to declare (*) (*) (*) (*) (*) (*) 31 Missing/DK (*) (*) (*) (*) (*) (*) 1 1 MICS indicator 6.8 — Early child development index ( ) Figures that are based on 25-49 unweighted cases (*) Figures that are based on less than 25 unweighted cases 164 Serbia Multiple Indicator Cluster Survey 2014 and Serbia Roma Settlements Multiple Indicator Cluster Survey 2014164 Serbia Multiple Indicator Cluster Survey 2014 and Serbia Roma Settlements Multiple Indicator Cluster Survey 2014 Developmental Status of Children in Roma Settlements ECDI calculated for children 36-59 months from Roma settlements is presented below in the Table CD.5R. In Roma Settlements in Serbia, 83 percent of children age 36-59 months are developmentally on track. Table CD.5R: Early child development index 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, Serbia Roma Settlements, 2014 Percentage of children age 36-59 months who are developmentally on track for indicated domains Early child development index score1 Percentage of children not on track in any of the four domains Number of children age 36-59 monthsLiteracy- numeracy Physical Social- Emotional Learning Total 15.7 96.1 82.8 95.3 83.3 1.5 640 Sex  Male 15.8 95.0 82.9 94.0 81.0 1.6 337 Female 15.6 97.3 82.6 96.8 85.8 1.5 303 Area  Urban 16.4 95.9 84.7 95.1 85.3 1.3 484 Other 13.5 96.7 76.9 95.9 77.2 2.2 156 Age  36-47 months 10.4 92.2 79.4 91.5 76.6 3.0 324 48-59 months 21.2 100.0 86.3 99.3 90.2 0.0 316 Attendance to early childhood education  Attending (56.9) (100.0) (67.0) (95.4) (87.7) (0.0) 36 Not attending 13.3 95.8 83.7 95.3 83.0 1.6 604 Mother’s education  None 12.9 98.2 75.7 92.3 81.7 1.4 173 Primary 12.7 95.1 85.1 96.5 83.5 1.4 421 Secondary or higher 54.0 97.1 87.9 95.5 87.9 2.9 46 Wealth index quintiles  Poorest 8.3 96.6 73.9 93.1 76.5 1.3 201 Second 9.1 98.5 86.2 95.5 85.1 0.8 117 Middle 12.6 97.9 83.1 95.2 85.2 2.1 122 Fourth 21.4 89.4 91.5 98.2 86.8 1.8 117 Richest 39.2 98.1 86.6 96.6 89.6 1.9 83 Wealth index   Poorest 60 percent 9.7 97.5 79.7 94.3 81.2 1.4 439 Richest 40 percent 28.8 93.0 89.5 97.5 88.0 1.8 201 1 MICS indicator 6.8 — Early child development index ( ) Figures that are based on 25-49 unweighted cases As expected, ECDI is much higher in the older age group (90 percent among children 48-59 months old compared to 77 percent among those age 36-47 months), since children mature more skills with increasing age. Children living in the poorest households have a lower ECDI (77 percent) compared to children living in the richest households (90 percent of children developmentally on track). The analysis of four domains of child development shows that 95 percent of children are on track in the learning and 96 percent in the physical domain, somewhat less on track in the socio-emotional domain (83 percent), and much less in the literacy-numeracy (16 percent) domain. Monitoring the situation of children and women 165 X LITERACY LITERACY AND EDUCATIONAND EDUCATION Literacy among Young Women The Youth Literacy Rate reflects the outcomes of primary education over the previous 10 years or so. As a measure of the effectiveness of the primary education system, it is often seen as a proxy measure of social progress and economic achievement. In MICS, since only a women’s questionnaire was administered, the results are based only on females age 15-24. Literacy is assessed on the ability of the respondent to read a short simple statement or based on school attendance. The percent literate, presented in Table ED.1. Table ED.1, indicates that 99 percent of young women in Serbia are literate and that literacy status varies only for women who have only primary education and those from the poorest households. Of women who stated that primary school was their highest level of education, 90 percent were actually able to read the statement shown to them and this was also the case for 94 percent of women from the poorest households. Table ED.1: Literacy (young women) Percentage of women age 15-24 years who are literate, Serbia, 2014 Percentage literate1 Percentage not known Number of women age 15-24 years Total 99.1 0.1 1077 Region  Belgrade 99.7 0.0 231 Vojvodina 97.1 0.1 273 Sumadija and Western Serbia 99.9 0.1 330 Southern and Eastern Serbia 99.9 0.0 242 Area  Urban 99.2 0.0 653 Other 99.1 0.1 423 Education  None (*) (*) 4 Primary 89.7 1.0 56 Secondary 100.0 0.0 622 Higher 100.0 0.0 395 Age  15-19 99.6 0.0 515 20-24 98.8 0.1 562 Wealth index quintile  Poorest 93.7 0.2 137 Second 100.0 0.0 243 Middle 100.0 0.0 249 Fourth 99.7 0.1 219 Richest 100.0 0.0 229 Ethnicity of household head  Serbian 100.0 0.0 936 Hungarian (100.0) (0.0) 38 Bosnian (100.0) (0.0) 22 Roma (76.1) (0.8) 34 Other (97.9) (0.0) 36 Does not want to declare (*) (*) 9 Missing/DK (*) (*) 1 1 MICS indicator 7.1; MDG indicator 2.3 — Literacy rate among young women ( ) Figures that are based on 25-49 unweighted cases (*) Figures that are based on less than 25 unweighted cases 166 Serbia Multiple Indicator Cluster Survey 2014 and Serbia Roma Settlements Multiple Indicator Cluster Survey 2014166 Serbia Multiple Indicator Cluster Survey 2014 and Serbia Roma Settlements Multiple Indicator Cluster Survey 2014 Literacy among Young Women in Roma Settlements Table ED.1R indicates that 80 percent of young women in Roma settlements in Serbia are literate. Of women who stated that they don’t have any education, only 15 percent are literate while among those with primary school, 88 percent are literate. Literacy was lower among the older age group of young women 20-24 years (72 percent literate) than among the younger group of women aged 15-19 (89 percent literate). Socioeconomic status is positively correlated with the literacy rate as 51 percent of young women that live in households in the poorest wealth quintile are literate compared to 98 percent of those that live in households in the richest wealth quintile. Table ED.1R: Literacy (young women) Percentage of women age 15-24 years who are literate, Serbia Roma Settlements, 2014 Percentage literate1 Percentage not known Number of women age 15-24 years Total 80.1 0.0 759 Area  Urban 80.4 0.0 568 Other 79.3 0.0 191 Education  None 15.4 0.0 103 Primary 87.9 0.0 525 Secondary or higher 100.0 0.0 130 Age  15-19 88.6 0.0 382 20-24 71.6 0.0 377 Wealth index quintile  Poorest 51.3 0.0 166 Second 78.4 0.0 148 Middle 83.0 0.0 133 Fourth 92.0 0.0 140 Richest 97.7 0.0 171 Wealth index  Poorest 60 percent 69.7 0.0 448 Richest 40 percent 95.1 0.0 311 1 MICS indicator 7.1; MDG indicator 2.3 — Literacy rate among young women Monitoring the situation of children and women 167 School Readiness Attendance to pre-school education is important for the readiness of children for school. From the school year 2006/2007 all children in Serbia have been obliged to attend the mandatory Preparatory Preschool Programme (PPP) for the duration of one school year. Table ED.2 shows the proportion of children in the first grade of primary school (regardless of age) who attended pre-school the previous year63. Overall, 98 percent of children who are currently attending the first grade of primary school were attending pre-school the previous year. The proportion is equally high for boys and girls, across regions and areas. Socioeconomic status appears to have an influence on school readiness. 92 percent of children from the poorest quintile who are currently attending the first grade of primary school were attending pre-school the previous year compared to 98 percent of children from the richest quintile. Table ED.2: School readinessa Percentage of children attending first grade of primary school who attended pre-school the previous year, Serbia, 2014   Percentage of children attending first grade who attended preschool in previous year1 Number of children attending first grade of primary school Total 98.1 217 Sex Male 98.1 119 Female 98.1 99 Region  Belgrade 98.9 45 Vojvodina 98.2 69 Sumadija and Western Serbia 97.6 54 Southern and Eastern Serbia 97.7 49 Area  Urban 98.3 137 Other 97.9 81 Mother’s education  None (*) 1 Primary (93.5) 33 Secondary 99.7 123 Higher 98.1 57 Cannot be determined (*) 3 Wealth index quintile  Poorest 91.7 36 Second 100.0 34 Middle 100.0 49 Fourth (100.0) 42 Richest 98.1 56 1 MICS indicator 7.2 — School readiness a The background characteristic “Ethnicity of household head” is not shown in the table due to small number of unweighted cases per disaggregation category ( ) Figures that are based on 25-49 unweighted cases  (*) Figures that are based on less than 25 unweighted cases  Table ED.2A presents attendance to PPP for children that are of PPP age64, as well as attendance by type of PPP facility65. The largest proportion of children attend or have attended, PPP in public preschool facilities (81 percent). 98 percent of children of PPP age attend or have attended PPP at the appropriate age. At the same time there are 19 percent of children who attend 63 The computation of the indicator does not exclude repeaters, and therefore is inclusive of both children who are attending primary school for the first time, as well as those who were in the first grade of primary school the previous school year and are repeating. Children repeating may have attended pre-school prior to the school year during which they attended the first grade of primary school for the first time; these children are not captured in the numerator of the indicator 64 Children of PPP age are children that turned 5 before 1st March 2013 as per the national legislation defining PPP enrolment age 65 PPP is not organized in private schools, therefore the category “Private facility” in the Household Questionnaire does not include private schools. PPP is organized in public schools only, in areas where there is not enough physical capacity in preschool facilities. 168 Serbia Multiple Indicator Cluster Survey 2014 and Serbia Roma Settlements Multiple Indicator Cluster Survey 2014 or having attended PPP in public schools. The percentage of children who attend or were attending PPP in primary school facilities is much higher in Sumadija and Western Serbia (29 percent), Southern and Eastern Serbia (31 percent) and other areas (32 percent), than in urban areas (11 percent) and the Belgrade region (5 percent). Table ED.2A: Preschool Preparation Programme (PPP) attendancea Percentage of children of PPP ageb attending/having attended PPP, and the percent distribution of children attending/having attended PPP according to the type of facility, Serbia, 2014 Attendance to PPP1 Percentage of children not attending PPP Number of children of PPP age Percent distribution Public facility Private facility School Total 98.1 1.9 198 81.1 0.3 18.5 Sex  Male 97.3 2.7 107 79.5 0.0 20.2 Female 99.0 1.0 91 82.9 0.6 16.5 Region  Belgrade 97.9 2.1 36 93.4 1.5 5.1 Vojvodina 94.1 5.9 47 99.3 0.0 0.0 Sumadija and Western Serbia 99.7 0.3 66 71.1 0.0 28.9 Southern and Eastern Serbia 100.0 0.0 49 69.2 0.0 30.8 Area  Urban 98.8 1.2 126 88.2 0.4 11.2 Other 96.8 3.2 72 68.4 0.0 31.6 Age  5 (*) (*) 2 (*) (*) (*) 6 98.3 1.7 193 80.8 0.3 18.8 7 (*) (*) 3 (*) (*) (*) Mother’s education  None (*) (*) 0 (*) (*) (*) Primary 95.3 (4.7) 23 (74.9) (0.0) (23.7) Secondary 98.4 1.6 117 80.5 0.0 19.5 Higher 99.5 0.5 55 84.8 0.1 15.1 Cannot be determined (*) (*) 2 (*) (*) (*) Father’s educationc  Primary (88.3) (11.7) 15 (75.9) (0.0) (24.1) Secondary 98.7 1.3 135 80.5 0.0 19.3 Higher 100.0 0.0 28 75.3 0.2 24.4 Father not in household (99.0) (1.0) 20 (96.1) (2.2) (1.6) Missing/DK (*) (*) 0 (*) (*) (*) Wealth index quintiles  Poorest (94.7) (5.3) 28 (66.0) (0.0) (34.0) Second 94.6 5.4 33 83.7 0.0 16.3 Middle 99.5 0.5 49 74.4 0.9 24.7 Fourth 99.4 0.6 43 86.3 0.0 12.9 Richest 100.0 0.0 45 90.6 0.2 9.2 1 Survey-specific indicator — Preschool Preparation Programme (PPP) attendance rate a The background characteristics “Ethnicity of household head” is not shown in the table due to small number of unweighted cases per disaggregation category b Children of PPP age are children that turned 5 before 1st March 2013 as per the national legislation defining PPP enrolment age c The category “None” within the background characteristic “Fathers’ education” is not shown in the table because there were no recorded cases ( ) 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 169 of children attending /having attended PPP according to type of facility Total Number of children of PPP ageb attending/having attended PPP Facility sponsored by Roma NGO Facility sponsored by other NGO Denominational facility Other facility Missing 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 194 0.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 104 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 90 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 35 0.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 44 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 66 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 49 0.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 124 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 70 (*) (*) (*) (*) (*) 100.0 2 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 189 (*) (*) (*) (*) (*) 100.0 3 (*) (*) (*) (*) (*) 100.0 0 (1.4) (0.0) (0.0) (0.0) (0.0) 100.0 22 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 115 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 55 (*) (*) (*) (*) (*) 100.0 2 (0.0) (0.0) (0.0) (0.0) (0.0) 100.0 13 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 133 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 28 (0.0) (0.0) (0.0) (0.0) (0.0) 100.0 20 (*) (*) (*) (*) (*) 100.0 0 (0.0) (0.0) (0.0) (0.0) (0.0) 100.0 27 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 31 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 49 0.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 43 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 45 Data are also collected on the average distance from the preschool facility to the place where children age 5-7 years who are attending or have attended PPP live and the means of transportation used by children (Table ED.2B). There are separate data presented for children for whom a preschool facility is more than 2 km away (Table ED.2C). The distance of 2 km is set as a legal standard for the network of preschool facilities in Serbian legislation. Table ED.2B shows that the average distance to a preschool facility is 1.4 km and the average time needed from the household to the PPP facility is 11.5 minutes. More than half of children age 5-7 years attending/having attended PPP walk to the preschool facility (63 percent) and almost one third are transported by private car or motorcycle (30 percent). 170 Serbia Multiple Indicator Cluster Survey 2014 and Serbia Roma Settlements Multiple Indicator Cluster Survey 2014 There are 17 percent of children who live more than 2 km away (Table ED.2C). This percentage is higher in other areas (25 percent) than in urban (12 percent) areas. 78 percent of children are transported by private car or motorcycle while 9 percent use organized transport. The average distance to a preschool facility for children who live more than 2 km away from PPP facility is 4.8 km, while the average time needed from the household to the PPP facility for these children is 14.6 minutes. Table ED.2B: Methods of going to PPP and average distance to the facilitya Percent distribution of children attending/having attended PPP according to method of travel to the facility, and among these children the average distance in kilometres travelled, and the average time in minutes it takes to travel to the PPP facility, Serbia, 2014 Method of travel to the PPP Total Average distance in kilometres1 Average time in minutes Number of children age 5-7 years attending/ having attended PPP Walks Bicycle Public transporta- tion Private car or motorcycle Organized transport to the facility Other Missing Total 62.5 3.2 2.1 30.2 1.7 0.0 0.3 100.0 1.4 11.5 421 Sex  Male 59.3 4.9 2.5 31.8 1.0 0.0 0.5 100.0 1.3 11.7 222 Female 66.1 1.2 1.7 28.5 2.4 0.0 0.0 100.0 1.4 11.3 200 Region  Belgrade 61.1 0.0 6.8 32.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 100.0 1.2 10.7 83 Vojvodina 59.9 10.8 0.5 27.7 0.2 0.0 0.9 100.0 1.0 10.3 121 Sumadija and Western Serbia 63.0 0.2 1.2 32.0 3.7 0.0 0.0 100.0 1.8 13.0 118 Southern and Eastern Serbia 66.5 0.0 1.5 29.6 2.4 0.0 0.0 100.0 1.4 12.0 98 Area  Urban 64.0 2.8 2.2 30.8 0.2 0.0 0.0 100.0 1.0 10.7 270 Other 60.0 3.7 2.1 29.2 4.2 0.0 0.8 100.0 2.0 13.1 152 Age  5 (48.2) (1.1) (4.9) (43.8) (2.0) (0.0) (0.0) 100.0 (1.8) (8.5) 18 6 63.8 3.5 1.1 30.2 1.3 0.0 0.0 100.0 1.2 11.2 197 7 62.6 3.0 2.9 29.0 1.9 0.0 0.6 100.0 1.4 12.1 207 Mother’s education  None (*) (*) (*) (*) (*) (*) (*) 100.0 (*) (*) 1 Primary 60.0 3.0 8.2 21.3 5.4 0.0 2.1 100.0 1.9 14.7 54 Secondary 63.7 3.5 1.5 29.7 1.5 0.0 0.0 100.0 1.4 11.5 248 Higher 60.1 2.4 0.7 36.6 0.2 0.0 0.0 100.0 1.1 9.9 114 Father’s education  None (*) (*) (*) (*) (*) (*) (*) 100.0 (*) (*) 1 Primary 64.3 1.7 11.0 19.0 4.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 1.6 14.9 42 Secondary 62.0 3.5 1.3 31.6 1.6 0.0 0.0 100.0 1.4 11.1 249 Higher 55.1 0.2 0.7 43.9 0.1 0.0 0.0 100.0 1.0 9.3 81 Father not in household 76.2 7.6 1.3 10.1 2.5 0.0 2.3 100.0 1.3 14.6 49 Wealth index quintiles  Poorest 73.4 2.0 7.0 9.9 5.9 0.0 1.8 100.0 1.5 16.6 63 Second 70.7 0.3 2.6 24.1 2.3 0.0 0.0 100.0 1.7 13.5 65 Middle 55.5 8.9 2.0 32.2 1.4 0.0 0.0 100.0 1.5 10.9 98 Fourth 66.4 1.7 0.3 31.2 0.4 0.0 0.0 100.0 1.1 10.0 93 Richest 53.9 1.6 0.7 43.7 0.1 0.0 0.0 100.0 1.1 9.3 103 1 Survey-specific indicator — Distance to the Preschool Preparation Programme (PPP) facility (kilometres) a The background characteristic “Ethnicity of household head” is not shown in the table due to small number of unweighted cases per disaggregation category ( ) 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 171 Table ED.2C: Children attending PPP and living more than 2 km away from the PPP facilitya Percentage of children age 5-7 years attending/having attended PPP who live more than 2 km away from the PPP facility, percent distrubution of these children according to the method of travel to the PPP facility, the average distance in kilometres travelled, and the average time in minutes it takes to travel to the PPP facility, Serbia, 2014 Percentage of children living more than 2 km away from PPP facility1 Number of children age 5-7 years attending/ having attended PPP Percent distribution of children attending/having attended PPP who live more than 2 kilometres away from the PPP facility according to the method of travel Total Average distance in kilometers Average time in minutes Number of children age 5-7 years at- tending/having attended PPP who live more than 2 km away from the PPP facility Walks Bicycle Public trans- porta- tion Private car or motor- cycle Organized transport to the facility Other Missing Total 16.7 421 6.5 1.1 5.1 78.1 9.2 0.0 0.0 100.0 4.8 14.6 71 Sex  Male 16.3 222 (5.6) (1.3) (4.2) (83.0) (5.9) (0.0) (0.0) 100.0 (4.3) (15.5) 36 Female 17.3 200 7.4 0.8 6.0 73.0 12.7 0.0 0.0 100.0 5.2 13.6 34 Region  Belgrade 20.2 83 0.0 0.0 3.7 95.9 0.4 0.0 0.0 100.0 3.4 10.2 17 Vojvodina 10.2 121 0.0 6.1 4.5 87.7 1.7 0.0 0.0 100.0 3.7 12.9 12 Sumadija and Western Serbia 20.1 118 (6.5) (0.0) (5.8) (70.4) (17.3) (0.0) (0.0) 100.0 (5.9) (15.1) 24 Southern and Eastern Serbia 17.9 98 17.2 0.0 6.0 64.8 12.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 5.2 19.2 18 Area  Urban 12.2 270 (1.8) (0.0) (2.5) (95.5) (0.2) (0.0) (0.0) 100.0 (3.5) (11.7) 33 Other 24.8 152 10.6 2.0 7.4 63.0 17.1 0.0 0.0 100.0 5.9 17.1 38 Age  5 (21.1) 18 (*) (*) (*) (*) (*) (*) (*) 100.0 (*) (*) 4 6 13.6 197 (3.1) (1.0) (6.9) (80.2) (8.7) (0.0) (0.0) 100.0 (5.2) (14.8) 27 7 19.3 207 (9.4) (0.7) (2.2) (78.2) (9.5) (0.0) (0.0) 100.0 (4.4) (14.9) 40 Mother’s education  None (*) 1 - - - - - - - 100.0 - - 0 Primary 28.6 54 (*) (*) (*) (*) (*) (*) (*) 100.0 (*) (*) 15 Secondary 14.4 248 1.0 2.1 8.1 78.9 10.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 5.3 13.0 36 Higher 16.8 114 (*) (*) (*) (*) (*) (*) (*) 100.0 (*) (*) 19 Cannot be determined (*) 5 (*) (*) (*) (*) (*) (*) (*) 100.0 (*) (*) 0 Father’s education  None (*) 1 - - - - - - - 100.0 - - 0 Primary 23.0 42 (*) (*) (*) (*) (*) (*) (*) 100.0 (*) (*) 10 Secondary 15.1 249 3.3 1.3 6.9 79.1 9.4 0.0 0.0 100.0 5.6 13.4 38 Higher 20.8 81 (*) (*) (*) (*) (*) (*) (*) 100.0 (*) (*) 17 Father not in household 13.2 49 (*) (*) (*) (*) (*) (*) (*) 100.0 (*) (*) 6 Wealth index quintiles  Poorest 17.3 63 (*) (*) (*) (*) (*) (*) (*) 100.0 (*) (*) 11 Second 18.2 65 (*) (*) (*) (*) (*) (*) (*) 100.0 (*) (*) 12 Middle 20.0 98 5.5 0.0 7.3 81.5 5.7 0.0 0.0 100.0 4.6 13.7 19.5 Fourth 18.9 93 (*) (*) (*) (*) (*) (*) (*) 100.0 (*) (*) 18 Richest 10.5 103 (*) (*) (*) (*) (*) (*) (*) 100.0 (*) (*) 11 1 Survey-specific indicator — Children living more than 2 kilometres from the Preschool Preparation Programme (PPP) facility a The background characteristic “Ethnicity of household head” is not shown in the table due to small number of unweighted cases per disaggregation category  ( ) Figures that are based on 25-49 unweighted cases (*) Figures that are based on less than 25 unweighted cases “-” denotes 0 unweighted cases in that cell 172 Serbia Multiple Indicator Cluster Survey 2014 and Serbia Roma Settlements Multiple Indicator Cluster Survey 2014172 Serbia Multiple Indicator Cluster Survey 2014 and Serbia Roma Settlements Multiple Indicator Cluster Survey 2014 School Readiness in Roma Settlements Table ED.2R shows the proportion of children from Roma Settlements in the first grade of primary school (regardless of age) who attended a pre-school programme in the previous year66. About 80 percent of children who are currently attending the first grade of primary school attended pre-school the previous year. There are no are no differentials by sex or area. Socioeconomic status appears to have a positive correlation with school readiness — the indicator is 73 percent among children living in households in the bottom three wealth quintiles, and increases to 93 percent among children living in in households in the top two wealth quintiles. Table ED.2R: School readiness Percentage of children attending first grade of primary school who attended pre-school the previous year, Serbia Roma Settlements, 2014 Percentage of children attending first grade who attended preschool in previous year1 Number of children attending first grade of primary school Total 79.9 186 Sex  Male 81.1 81 Female 79.0 106 Area  Urban 80.0 140 Other 79.6 46 Mother’s education  None 77.4 64 Primary 81.4 110 Secondary or higher (*) 11 Cannot be determined (*) 1 Wealth index quintile  Poorest 77.3 51 Second (61.2) 35 Middle (78.1) 35 Fourth (94.5) 37 Richest (91.2) 29 Wealth index  Poorest 60 percent 72.8 121 Richest 40 percent 93.1 65 1 MICS indicator 7.2 — School readiness ( ) Figures that are based on 25-49 unweighted cases  (*) Figures that are based on less than 25 unweighted cases  66 The computation of the indicator does not exclude repeaters, and therefore is inclusive of both children who are attending primary school for the first time, as well as those who were in the first grade of primary school the previous school year and are repeating. Children repeating may have attended pre-school prior to the school year during which they attended the first grade of primary school for the first time; these children are not captured in the numerator of the indicator Attendance to PPP1 Percentage of children not attending PPP Number of children of PPP age Total 62.9 36.6 194 Sex  Male 63.7 35.9 111 Female 62.0 37.5 82 Area  Urban 65.1 34.2 136 Other 57.8 42.2 58 Age  5 (*) (*) 3 6 62.8 36.6 183 7 (*) (*) 7 Mother’s education  None 44.1 54.8 44 Primary 68.7 31.3 142 Secondary or higher (*) (*) 7 Cannot be determined (*) (*) 0 Father’s education  None (40.2) (57.7) 23 Primary 68.9 30.7 122 Secondary or higher (*) * 19 Father not in household (44.2) (55.8) 30 Wealth index quintiles  Poorest 46.6 53.4 45 Second 62.8 36.3 51 Middle (68.3) (30.3) 33 Fourth (64.0) (36.0) 47 Richest (*) (*) 17 Wealth index  Poorest 60 percent 58.6 40.7 130 Richest 40 percent 71.8 28.2 64 Monitoring the situation of children and women 173Monitoring the situation of children and women 173 Table ED.2A.R presents attendance to PPP for children that are of PPP age67 as well as attendance by type of PPP facility. 63 percent of children of PPP age from Roma settlements attend or have attended PPP. There is a notable difference in the percentage of children attending PPP by socioeconomic status; 59 percent of children living in households in the bottom three wealth quintiles attend or have attended PPP, compared to 72 percent of children living in households in the top two wealth quintiles. 67 Children of PPP age are children that turned 5 before 1st March 2013 as per the national legislation defining PPP enrolment age Table ED.2A.R: Preschool Preparation Programme (PPP) attendance Percentage of children of PPP agea attending/having attended PPP, and the percent distribution of children attending/having attended PPP according to the type of facility, Serbia Roma Settlements, 2014 Percent distribution of children attending/having attended PPP according to type of facility Total Number of children of PPP agea attending/ having attended PPP Public facility Private facility School Facility sponsored by Roma NGO Facility sponsored by other NGO Denominational facility Other facility Missing 84.6 0.6 14.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.8 0.5 100.0 122 84.0 0.0 14.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.5 0.4 100.0 71 85.3 1.3 13.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.6 100.0 51 87.7 0.8 10.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.2 0.7 100.0 88 (76.4) (0.0) (23.6) (0.0) (0.0) (0.0) (0.0) (0.0) 100.0 33 (*) (*) (*) (*) (*) (*) (*) (*) 100.0 1 84.0 0.6 14.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.9 0.5 100.0 115 (*) (*) (*) (*) (*) (*) (*) (*) 100.0 6 (82.6) (3.4) (14.0) (0.0) (0.0) (0.0) (0.0) (1.1) 100.0 20 86.3 0.0 12.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.1 0.0 100.0 97 (*) (*) (*) (*) (*) (*) (*) (*) 100.0 5 (*) (*) (*) (*) (*) (*) (*) (*) 100.0 0 (*) (*) (*) (*) (*) (*) (*) (*) 100.0 9 84.9 0.8 13.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.2 0.4 100.0 84 (*) (*) (*) (*) (*) (*) (*) (*) 100.0 15 (*) (*) (*) (*) (*) (*) (*) (*) 100.0 13 (46.6) (53.4) (45.1) (87.8) (3.2) (9.0) (0.0) (0.0) 0.0 0 (62.8) (36.3) (51.1) (88.5) (0.0) (11.5) (0.0) (0.0) 0.0 0 (68.3) (30.3) (33.5) (77.4) (0.0) (22.6) (0.0) (0.0) 0.0 0 (64.0) (36.0) (46.5) (91.8) (0.0) (4.8) (0.0) (0.0) 0.0 3 (*) (*) (*) (*) (*) (*) (*) (*) 100.0 16 85.0 0.9 14.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.7 100.0 76 83.9 0.0 13.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.2 0.0 100.0 46 1 Survey-specific indicator — Preschool Preparation Programme (PPP) attendance rate a Children of PPP age are children that turned 5 before 1st March 2013 as per the national legislation defining PPP enrolment age ( ) Figures that are based on 25-49 unweighted cases  (*) Figures that are based on less than 25 unweighted cases 174 Serbia Multiple Indicator Cluster Survey 2014 and Serbia Roma Settlements Multiple Indicator Cluster Survey 2014174 Serbia Multiple Indicator Cluster Survey 2014 and Serbia Roma Settlements Multiple Indicator Cluster Survey 2014 The largest proportion of children attend or have attended PPP in public preschool facilities (85 percent) and 14 percent of children who attend or have attended PPP in public schools. Data are also collected on the average distance from the preschool facility where PPP is delivered to the place where children age 5-7 years who are attending or have attended PPP live, and the means of transportation used by children (Table ED.2B.R). There are separate data presented for children for whom a preschool facility is more than 2 km away (Table ED.2C.R). The distance of 2 km is set as a legal standard for the network of preschool facilities in Serbian legislation. The average distance to the preschool facility for children from Roma settlements is 1.9 km and the average time needed from the household to the PPP facility is 18.8 minutes. Table ED.2B.R: Methods of going to PPP and average distance to the facility Percent distribution of children attending/having attended PPP according to method of travel to the facility, and among these children the average distance in kilometres travelled, and the average time in minutes it takes to travel to the PPP facility, Serbia Roma Settlements, 2014 Percent distribution of children attending/having attended PPP according to method of travel to the facility Total Average distance in kilometres1 Average time in minutes Number of children age 5-7 years attending/ having attended PPP Walks Bicycle Public transportation Private car or motorcycle Organized transport to the facility Other Missing Total 77.8 3.0 12.2 2.0 4.9 0.0 0.1 100.0 1.9 18.8 276 Sex  Male 78.9 0.9 13.8 1.5 4.9 0.0 0.0 100.0 2.0 20.0 145 Female 76.7 5.2 10.4 2.5 4.9 0.0 0.3 100.0 1.7 17.6 132 Area  Urban 79.2 3.1 12.2 1.8 3.8 0.0 0.0 100.0 1.7 18.9 199 Other 74.3 2.6 12.2 2.7 7.7 0.0 0.5 100.0 2.2 18.7 77 Age  5 (58.1) (0.0) (12.5) (3.8) (25.5) (0.0) (0.0) 100.0 (2.3) (13.7) 22 6 79.5 2.3 10.1 3.2 4.7 0.0 0.3 100.0 1.6 17.9 119 7 79.5 4.1 14.0 0.7 1.7 0.0 0.0 100.0 2.0 20.4 135 Mother’s education  None 70.9 7.9 13.3 0.0 8.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 2.0 20.5 65 Primary 79.1 1.4 12.5 2.6 4.2 0.0 0.2 100.0 1.9 18.4 196 Secondary or higher (*) (*) (*) (*) (*) (*) (*) 100.0 (*) (*) 14 Father’s education  None 69.8 0.0 3.1 1.3 25.8 0.0 0.0 100.0 2.8 21.9 23 Primary 80.0 2.9 12.9 1.2 2.8 0.0 0.2 100.0 1.6 17.3 185 Secondary or higher (78.3) (6.6) (7.6) (7.5) (0.0) (0.0) (0.0) 100.0 (1.3) (17.8) 35 Father not in household (70.7) (1.5) (19.5) (1.2) (7.0) (0.0) (0.0) 100.0 (3.4) (26.4) 34 Wealth index quintiles  Poorest 75.3 0.0 11.2 0.8 12.6 0.0 0.0 100.0 2.5 22.6 57 Second 67.7 7.2 21.4 0.0 3.7 0.0 0.0 100.0 2.0 16.2 55 Middle 80.7 6.0 12.2 0.0 0.6 0.0 0.5 100.0 1.2 17.0 65 Fourth 86.1 0.7 5.1 1.8 6.3 0.0 0.0 100.0 1.4 19.1 61 Richest (77.8) (0.0) (11.9) (10.4) (0.0) (0.0) (0.0) 100.0 (2.6) (19.7) 39 Wealth index   Poorest 60 percent 75.0 4.4 14.7 0.3 5.4 0.0 0.2 100.0 1.9 18.5 177 Richest 40 percent 82.9 0.4 7.7 5.1 3.9 0.0 0.0 100.0 1.9 19.3 100 1 Survey-specific indicator — Distance to the Preschool Preparation Programme (PPP) facility (kilometres) ( ) 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 175Monitoring the situation of children and women 175 23 percent of children from Roma settlements live more than 2 km away and for these children the average distance from the preschool facility is 5.5 km (Table ED.2C.R). The percentage of children who live more than 2 km away is higher for children living in households in the bottom three wealth quintiles (27 percent) compared to children living in households in the top two wealth quintiles (17 percent). Table ED.2C.R also shows what the usual means of transportation for these children are; 45 percent of children use public transportation, 18 percent use organized transportation while only 5 percent are transported by a private car or motorcycle. As high as 27 percent of children walk to a preschool facility that is on average more than 5 km away. Table ED.2C.R: Children attending PPP and living more than 2 km away from the PPP facility Percentage of children attending PPP and living more than 2 km away from the PPP facility, methods of going to PPP and average distance to the facility, Serbia Roma Settlements, 2014 Percentage of children living more than 2 km away from the PPP facility1 Number of children age 5-7 years at- tending/ having attended PPP Percent distribution of children attending/having attended PPP who live more than 2 kilometres away from the PPP facility according to the method of travel Total Average distance in kilometres Average time in minutes Number of children age 5-7 years attending/ having attended PPP who live more than 2 km away from the PPP facility Walks Bicycle Public trans- porta- tion Private car or motor- cycle Organized transport to the facility Other Missing Total 23.1 276 27.4 4.9 44.5 5.0 18.1 0.0 0.0 100.0 5.5 27.4 64 Sex  Male 23.6 145 (29.3) (0.0) (47.8) (4.1) (18.8) (0.0) (0.0) 100.0 (5.9) (31.9) 34 Female 22.5 132 (25.1) (10.6) (40.8) (6.1) (17.4) (0.0) (0.0) 100.0 (5.0) (22.2) 30 Area  Urban 22.2 199 (29.7) (5.2) (45.3) (5.1) (14.7) (0.0) (0.0) 100.0 (5.3) (29.3) 44 Other 25.4 77 (*) (*) (*) (*) (*) (*) (*) 100.0 (*) (*) 20 Age  5 (33.6) 22 (*) (*) (*) (*) (*) (*) (*) 100.0 (*) (*) 7 6 20.5 119 (30.4) (9.4) (34.2) (9.4) (16.6) (0.0) (0.0) 100.0 (4.7) (23.4) 25 7 23.6 135 (29.8) (2.7) (57.4) (2.8) (7.3) (0.0) (0.0) 100.0 (6.1) (33.1) 32 Mother’s education  None 28.5 65 (*) (*) (*) (*) (*) (*) (*) 100.0 (*) (*) 19 Primary 22.0 196 28.1 2.0 46.6 6.5 16.8 0.0 0.0 100.0 5.9 27.5 43 Secondary or higher (*) 14 (*) (*) (*) (*) (*) (*) (*) 100.0 (*) (*) 2 Cannot be determined (*) 1 (*) (*) (*) (*) (*) (*) (*) 100.0 (*) (*) 0 Father’s education  None (47.5) 23 (*) (*) (*) (*) (*) (*) (*) 100.0 (*) (*) 11 Primary 20.0 185 (22.6) (2.3) (57.1) (4.0) (14.0) (0.0) (0.0) 100.0 (4.9) (23.1) 37 Secondary or higher (21.0) 35 (*) (*) (*) (*) (*) (*) (*) 100.0 (*) (*) 7 Father not in household (25.8) 34 (*) (*) (*) (*) (*) (*) (*) 100.0 (*) (*) 9 Wealth index quintiles  Poorest 36.6 57 (*) (*) (*) (*) (*) (*) (*) 100.0 (*) (*) 21 Second 29.2 55 (*) (*) (*) (*) (*) (*) (*) 100.0 (*) (*) 16 Middle 16.0 65 (*) (*) (*) (*) (*) (*) (*) 100.0 (*) (*) 10 Fourth 16.7 61 (*) (*) (*) (*) (*) (*) (*) 100.0 (*) (*) 10 Richest (16.2) 39 (*) (*) (*) (*) (*) (*) (*) 100.0 (*) (*) 6 Wealth index   Poorest 60 percent 26.8 177 30.1 6.6 45.9 1.0 16.3 0.0 0.0 100.0 4.7 25.0 47 Richest 40 percent 16.5 100 (*) (*) (*) (*) (*) (*) (*) 100.0 (*) (*) 16 1 Survey-specific indicator — Children living more than 2 kilometres from the Preschool Preparation Programme (PPP) facility ( ) Figures that are based on 25-49 unweighted cases  (*) Figures that are based on less than 25 unweighted cases 176 Serbia Multiple Indicator Cluster Survey 2014 and Serbia Roma Settlements Multiple Indicator Cluster Survey 2014176 Serbia Multiple Indicator Cluster Survey 2014 and Serbia Roma Settlements Multiple Indicator Cluster Survey 2014 As the percentage of children not attending PPP from Roma settlements is still high given its mandatory nature, the reasons for non-attendance were further explored. The reasons are divided into three main groups: parental attitudes, access problems and financial problems and parents were asked to quote the main reasons (more than one, if applicable) for non-attendance (Table ED.2D.R). Financial problems are identified as being an important reason for not attending PPP (31 percent). Among them, the biggest issues are the cost of clothes, hygiene items and food for children. Problems with access are the second biggest obstacle for attendance to PPP (29 percent), where the distance from institutions and the fact that the child does not possess the necessary documents are listed as the main reasons. 7 percent of parents responded that they did not know that PPP is compulsory, and 6 percent thought children would not learn much there. 32 percent of parents stated other reasons for not attending PPP. Table ED.2D.R: Reasons for non-attendance to the preparatory preschool programme (PPP) Percentage of children age 6-7 years according to reasons for non-attendance to the preparatory preschool programme (PPP), Serbia Roma Settlements, 2014 Reasons for non-attendance to PPP Parental attitudes Access problems Not much to learn in PPP Disabled Groups overcrowded, lack of attention Inadequate treatment Didn’t know it is compulsory Overcrowded facility Too far Child not registered (no documents) No one can take child to PPP Total 5.8 2.4 1.5 0.9 6.9 2.4 14.3 9.1 4.4 Sex  Male 7.7 3.0 1.2 1.7 7.1 2.6 13.1 9.0 3.1 Female 3.4 1.7 2.0 0.0 6.6 2.2 15.8 9.2 5.9 Area  Urban 8.1 1.3 1.8 0.6 5.0 3.1 17.2 8.4 4.8 Other (0.0) (5.3) (0.9) (1.8) (11.4) (0.8) (7.3) (10.9) (3.4) Age  6 3.5 2.4 2.9 1.7 8.6 0.6 13.4 4.9 5.5 7 8.3 2.5 0.0 0.0 4.9 4.5 15.4 13.9 3.1 Mother’s education  None 11.5 2.2 0.0 1.3 9.0 0.9 3.4 14.0 7.4 Primary 1.9 2.7 2.7 0.7 5.6 3.7 22.8 6.0 2.5 Secondary or higher (*) (*) (*) (*) (*) (*) (*) (*) (*) Cannot be determined (*) (*) (*) (*) (*) (*) (*) (*) (*) Father’s education  None (*) (*) (*) (*) (*) (*) (*) (*) (*) Primary 0.8 2.9 2.6 0.7 5.7 4.1 20.5 2.7 2.9 Secondary or higher (*) (*) (*) (*) (*) (*) (*) (*) (*) Father not in household (3.9) (2.9) (0.0) (0.0) (10.7) (0.0) (6.2) (23.5) (10.1) Wealth index  Poorest 60 percent 7.5 1.9 2.0 1.2 8.5 3.2 2.7 11.8 4.7 Richest 40 percent (*) (*) (*) (*) (*) (*) (*) (*) (*) 1 Survey-specific indicator — Non-attendance to PPP due to parental attitudes 2 Survey-specific indicator — Non-attendance to PPP due to access problems 3 Survey-specific indicator — Non-attendance to PPP due to financial constraints ( ) 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 177Monitoring the situation of children and women 177 Parental attitudes1 Access problems2 Financial problems3 Other reasons Number of children age 6-7 years not attending an preparatory preschool programme (PPP) Financial problems Costs of transportation School supplies Clothes Food Hygiene expenses 8.4 8.6 21.3 17.6 17.7 17.0 28.8 30.5 31.8 131 10.6 6.4 21.5 21.6 19.1 20.8 26.6 31.6 26.9 71 5.7 11.2 21.0 12.7 16.1 12.7 31.3 29.2 37.5 60 7.3 7.4 19.9 14.0 16.7 16.1 32.4 28.8 32.2 93 (11.0) (11.5) (24.6) (26.2) (20.3) (19.5) (19.9) (34.8) (30.8) 38 9.1 11.0 24.6 22.2 22.7 19.1 23.1 36.5 32.0 70 7.5 5.8 17.5 12.3 12.0 14.7 35.2 23.7 31.5 61 7.9 8.9 29.8 19.7 29.9 24.0 23.9 40.2 28.9 53 9.1 7.6 15.0 15.7 9.8 12.8 33.5 23.8 33.0 74 (*) (*) (*) (*) (*) (*) (*) (*) (*) 3 (*) (*) (*) (*) (*) (*) (*) (*) (*) 0 (*) (*) (*) (*) (*) (*) (*) (*) (*) 19 11.2 9.6 13.8 14.5 10.3 11.9 29.0 22.9 36.9 78 (*) (*) (*) (*) (*) (*) (*) (*) (*) 3 (0.0) (7.0) (35.1) (15.7) (22.2) (17.5) (36.5) (39.4) (24.9) 31 10.8 11.1 23.3 18.4 18.7 20.5 21.4 35.2 33.4 101 (*) (*) (*) (*) (*) (*) (*) (*) (*) 30 178 Serbia Multiple Indicator Cluster Survey 2014 and Serbia Roma Settlements Multiple Indicator Cluster Survey 2014 Primary and Secondary School Participation Universal access to basic education and the achievement of primary education by the world’s children is one of the Millennium Development Goals. Education is a vital prerequisite for combating poverty, empowering women, protecting children from hazardous and exploitative labour and sexual exploitation, promoting human rights and democracy, protecting the environment, and influencing population growth. Table ED.3: Primary school entrya Percentage of children of primary school entry age entering grade 1 (net intake rate), Serbia, 2014 Percentage of children of primary school entry age entering grade 11 Number of children of primary school entry age Total 97.0 217 Sex  Male 99.8 112 Female 94.0 105 Region  Belgrade 94.4 48 Vojvodina 94.6 71 Sumadija and Western Serbia 100.0 53 Southern and Eastern Serbia 100.0 45 Area  Urban 98.7 135 Other 94.1 81 Mother’s education  None (*) 4 Primary (99.2) 32 Secondary 96.9 122 Higher 100.0 56 Cannot be determined (*) 3 Wealth index quintile  Poorest 91.0 39 Second 99.3 33 Middle 100.0 45 Fourth (97.0) 43 Richest 97.4 56 1 MICS indicator 7.3 — Net intake rate in primary education a The background characteristic “Ethnicity of household head” is not shown in the table due to the small number of unweighted cases per disaggregation category ( ) Figures that are based on 25-49 unweighted cases  (*) Figures that are based on less than 25 unweighted cases  Male Net attendance ratio (adjusted) Percentage of Not attending school or preschool Attending preschool Total 99.1 0.9 0.0 Region  Belgrade 99.8 0.2 0.0 Vojvodina 98.8 1.1 0.1 Sumadija and Western Serbia 98.1 1.9 0.0 Southern and Eastern Serbia 100.0 0.0 0.0 Area  Urban 99.7 0.2 0.1 Other 98.1 1.9 0.0 Ageb 6 99.8 0.0 0.2 7 100.0 0.0 0.0 8 94.9 5.1 0.0 9 100.0 0.0 0.0 10 100.0 0.0 0.0 11 99.8 0.2 0.0 12 99.8 0.2 0.0 13 97.5 2.5 0.0 Mother’s education  None (*) (*) (*) Primary 99.5 0.5 0.0 Secondary 99.1 0.9 0.0 Higher 100.0 0.0 0.0 Cannot be determined (*) (*) (*) Wealth index quintile  Poorest 97.6 2.2 0.2 Second 97.3 2.7 0.0 Middle 100.0 0.0 0.0 Fourth 99.9 0.1 0.0 Richest 100.0 0.0 0.0 Ethnicity of household head  Serbian 100.0 0.0 0.0 Hungarian (99.5) (0.5) (0.0) Bosnian (*) (*) (*) Roma (90.8) (8.4) (0.8) Other (99.4) (0.6) (0.0) Does not want to declare (*) (*) (*) Monitoring the situation of children and women 179 Table ED.4: Primary school attendance and out of school children Percentage of children of primary school age attending primary or secondary school (adjusted net attendance ratio), percentage attending preschool, and percentage out of school, Serbia, 2014 Female Total children: Number of children Net attendance ratio (adjusted) Percentage of children: Number of children Net attendance ratio (adjusted)1 Percentage of children: Number of childrenOut of schoola Not attending school or preschool Attending preschool Out of schoola Not attending school or preschool Attending preschool Out of schoola 0.9 762 97.9 0.7 0.4 1.1 809 98.5 0.8 0.2 1.0 1570 0.2 164 95.3 0.9 0.0 0.9 144 97.7 0.5 0.0 0.5 308 1.2 233 98.2 0.3 1.5 1.8 222 98.5 0.7 0.8 1.5 455 1.9 198 98.0 1.6 0.0 1.6 248 98.0 1.7 0.0 1.7 446 0.0 166 99.5 0.1 0.0 0.1 195 99.7 0.1 0.0 0.1 361 0.3 452 98.5 0.1 0.3 0.4 472 99.1 0.1 0.2 0.3 924 1.9 310 97.2 1.6 0.6 2.2 337 97.6 1.7 0.3 2.1 646 0.2 112 95.4 1.5 3.2 4.6 105 97.7 0.7 1.6 2.3 217 0.0 88 100.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 105 100.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 193 5.1 78 100.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 116 98.0 2.0 0.0 2.0 194 0.0 96 100.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 66 100.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 162 0.0 95 99.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 124 99.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 220 0.2 91 96.1 3.0 0.0 3.0 130 97.6 1.8 0.0 1.8 221 0.2 108 94.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 105 97.0 0.1 0.0 0.1 213 2.5 93 99.2 0.8 0.0 0.8 59 98.1 1.9 0.0 1.9 152 (*) 6 (*) (*) (*) (*) 13 (74.0) (13.9) (12.0) (26.0) 19 0.5 139 97.7 0.4 0.0 0.4 109 98.7 0.5 0.0 0.5 248 0.9 435 98.7 1.0 0.3 1.2 504 98.9 0.9 0.1 1.1 939 0.0 170 97.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 173 98.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 343 (*) 12 (*) (*) (*) (*) 10 (*) (*) (*) (*) 21 2.4 125 93.6 3.7 1.3 5.1 153 95.4 3.0 0.8 3.8 278 2.7 136 99.8 0.2 0.0 0.2 144 98.6 1.4 0.0 1.4 279 0.0 203 99.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 153 99.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 356 0.1 150 99.3 0.0 0.7 0.7 182 99.5 0.1 0.4 0.5 332 0.0 149 97.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 177 98.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 326 0.0 644 98.9 0.7 0.0 0.7 664 99.5 0.4 0.0 0.4 1308 (0.5) 46 (96.4) (0.0) (3.6) (3.6) 36 98.1 0.3 1.6 1.9 82 (*) 15 (100.0) (0.0) (0.0) (0.0) 29 91.6 8.4 0.0 8.4 44 (9.2) 31 93.2 2.3 4.5 6.8 45 92.3 4.8 3.0 7.7 76 (0.6) 24 (100.0) (0.0) (0.0) (0.0) 24 99.7 0.3 0.0 0.3 48 (*) 2 (*) (*) (*) (*) 10 (*) (*) (*) (*) 12 1 Survey-specific indicator 7.S4 — Primary school net attendance ratio (adjusted) a The percentage of children of primary school age out of school are those not attending school and those attending preschool b Age is adjusted to take into account age eligibility criteria for starting primary school. Since age eligibility criteria for starting primary school changed in Serbia in 2006, separate calculations were applied for children born in 1998 or earlier and those born afterwards. For the first group, the appropriate age at the start of primary school refers to the age in the 2013 calendar year, while for the second group adjusted age is the age of the child (in completed years) by the end of February 2013. ( ) Figures that are based on 25-49 unweighted cases  (*) Figures that are based on less than 25 unweighted cases  180 Serbia Multiple Indicator Cluster Survey 2014 and Serbia Roma Settlements Multiple Indicator Cluster Survey 2014 In Serbia, children enter primary school at age 668 and enter secondary school at age 14. There are 8 grades in primary school and 3 or 4 grades in secondary school. In primary school, grades are referred to as year 1 to year 8. For secondary school, grades are referred to as year 1 to year 3 or 4. The school year typically runs from September of one year to June of the following year. Of children who are of primary school entry age (age 6) in Serbia, 97 percent attend the first grade of primary school (Table ED.3). There are small sex differentials, as 100 percent of boys enter the first grade on time, compared to 94 percent of girls. Differentials are present by region and urban-other areas. In Sumadija and Western Serbia and Southern and Eastern Serbia, for instance, the value of the indicator reaches 100 percent, while it is 94 percent in the Belgrade region and 95 percent in Vojvodina. Children’s participation to primary school is timelier in urban areas (99 percent) than in other areas (94 percent). The timely enrolment or the net intake rate is 91 percent among children living in the poorest households while the percentage is higher for all other quintiles. Table ED.4 provides the percentage of children of primary school age 6 to 13 years who are attending primary or secondary school69 and those who are out of school. The majority of children of primary school age attend school (99 percent). Differences by background characteristics (sex, urban/other, region, socioeconomic status or mother’s education) are not visible. Although almost universal primary education attendance is achieved, 4 percent of children from the poorest wealth quintile are still out of school. The secondary school net attendance ratio is presented in Table ED.570. Secondary school, which is not compulsory in Serbia, is attended by 89 percent of children. Out of 11 percent of children who do not attend secondary school, 3 percent attend primary school, while the remaining 8 percent do not attend school at all. There is a notable difference in secondary school attendance between girls (93 percent) and boys (86 percent). Also, attendance to secondary education is more prevalent among children whose mothers have higher education (99 percent), than children whose mothers have primary education (84 percent). In the richest households, the proportion of children attending secondary education is around 97 percent, while it is 74 percent among children living in the poorest households. 68 The national education system classification comprises 8 grades of obligatory primary school education (typically for ages 6-13 years; children who turn 6 by the end of February are required to enrol in the first grade of primary school in September of the same year), and 4 grades of secondary school education (typically for ages 14-18 years). Age is adjusted to take into account age eligibility criteria for starting primary school. Since age eligibility criteria for starting primary school changed in Serbia in 2006, separate calculations were applied for children born in 1998 or earlier and those born afterwards. For the first group, the appropriate age at the start of primary school refers to the age in the 2013 calendar year, while for the second group, adjusted age is the age of the child (in completed years) by the end of February 2013. 69 Ratios presented in this table are “adjusted” since they include not only primary school attendance, but also secondary school attendance in the numerator. 70 Ratios presented in this table are “adjusted” since they include not only secondary school attendance, but also attendance to higher levels in the numerator. Male Net attendance ratio (adjusted) Percentage of children: Attending primary school Out of schoola Total 86.0 2.6 11.1 Region  Belgrade 82.1 3.5 12.4 Vojvodina 85.6 5.9 8.6 Sumadija and Western Serbia 84.5 1.1 14.4 Southern and Eastern Serbia 91.2 0.6 8.2 Area  Urban 87.3 3.0 9.0 Other 84.1 2.0 13.9 Ageb 14 (*) (*) (*) 15 90.1 2.0 7.9 16 95.5 2.3 2.2 17 90.8 0.2 9.0 18 72.8 0.0 25.7 Mother’s education  None (*) (*) (*) Primary (78.1) (2.7) (19.3) Secondary 96.3 2.3 1.4 Higher (98.2) (1.8) (0.0) Cannot be determinedc 73.8 3.2 21.9 Wealth index quintile  Poorest 68.2 2.2 29.6 Second 85.7 0.6 13.6 Middle 85.1 8.5 6.3 Fourth 89.3 1.6 9.0 Richest 96.7 1.5 0.0 1 Survey-specific indicator 7.S5 — Secondary school net attendance ratio (adjusted) a The percentage of children of secondary school age out of school are those who are not attending primary, secondary, or higher education b Age is adjusted to take into account age eligibility criteria for starting primary school. Since age eligibility criteria for starting primary school changed in Serbia in 2006, separate calculations were applied for children born in 1998 or earlier and those born afterwards. For the first group, the appropriate age at the start of primary school refers to the age in the 2013 calendar year, while for the second group adjusted age is the age of the child (in completed years) by the end of February 2013. c Children age 15 or higher at the time of the interview whose mothers were not living in the household The background characteristic “Ethnicity of household head” is not shown in the table due to the small number of unweighted cases per disaggregation category ( ) Figures that are based on 25-49 unweighted cases  (*) Figures that are based on less than 25 unweighted cases  “-” denotes 0 unweighted cases in that cell Monitoring the situation of children and women 181 Table ED.5: Secondary school attendance and out of school children Percentage of children of secondary school age attending secondary school or higher (adjusted net attendance ratio), percentage attending primary school, and percentage out of school, Serbia, 2014 Female Total Number of children Net attendance ratio (adjusted) Percentage of children: Number of children Net attendance ratio (adjusted)1 Percentage of children: Number of childrenAttending primary school Out of school a Attending primary school Out of school a 498 93.0 2.4 4.2 402 89.1 2.5 8.0 900 101 97.9 0.0 2.1 69 88.6 2.1 8.2 170 117 88.7 3.9 7.4 100 87.0 5.0 8.0 217 156 91.1 3.8 3.7 112 87.3 2.2 9.9 268 124 95.4 1.2 3.4 121 93.3 0.9 5.8 245 283 93.9 1.8 4.3 238 90.3 2.4 6.8 521 215 91.7 3.2 4.1 165 87.4 2.5 9.6 379 19 (*) (*) (*) 12 (*) (*) (*) 31 106 94.3 2.5 1.6 97 92.1 2.2 4.9 203 130 95.6 1.7 2.8 86 95.5 2.1 2.4 216 110 98.7 0.3 1.0 85 94.2 0.3 5.5 194 132 89.9 0.0 10.1 123 81.0 0.0 18.2 255 5 (*) (*) (*) 1 (*) (*) (*) 6 48 92.4 0.9 6.7 30 83.6 2.0 14.4 78 197 94.8 4.0 0.3 176 95.6 3.1 0.9 373 66 (100.0) (0.0) (0.0) 39 98.9 1.1 0.0 106 182 89.7 1.4 8.9 157 81.1 2.4 15.9 339 82 83.3 5.3 11.4 51 74.0 3.4 22.6 134 119 92.8 0.0 7.2 105 89.1 0.3 10.6 223 81 94.6 1.3 2.2 81 89.9 4.9 4.3 162 105 91.9 6.2 2.0 74 90.4 3.5 6.1 179 111 98.1 1.3 0.6 91 97.3 1.4 0.3 202 182 Serbia Multiple Indicator Cluster Survey 2014 and Serbia Roma Settlements Multiple Indicator Cluster Survey 2014 The percentage of children entering first grade who eventually reach the last grade of primary school is presented in Table ED.6. In Serbia, grade 8, which is the last grade of primary education, corresponds to ISCED level 2. For global comparison purposes, data presented as per ISCED levels can be found in Annex G. Of all children starting grade one, the majority (98 percent) will eventually reach the last grade and there are no differentials by sex. The MICS included only questions on school attendance in the current and previous year. Thus, the indicator is calculated synthetically by computing the cumulative probability of survival from the first to the last grade of primary school, as opposed to calculating the indicator for a real cohort which would need to be followed from the time a cohort of children entered primary school, up to the time they reached the last grade of primary school. Repeaters are excluded from the calculation of the indicator, because it is not known whether they will eventually graduate. As an example, the probability that a child will move from the first grade to the second grade is computed by dividing the number of children who moved from the first grade to the second grade (during the two consecutive school years covered by the survey) by the number of children who have moved from the first to the second grade plus the number of children who were in the first grade the previous school year, but dropped out. Both the numerator and denominator exclude children who repeated during the two school years under consideration. Table ED.6: Children reaching last grade of primary schoola 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), Serbia, 2014 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 Total 100.0 99.8 100.0 99.9 99.5 Sex Male 100.0 99.6 100.0 99.8 100.0 Female 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 99.1 Region Belgrade 100.0 100.0 (100.0) (99.5) (100.0) Vojvodina 100.0 99.4 100.0 100.0 100.0 Sumadija and Western Serbia 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 98.4 Southern and Eastern Serbia 100.0 100.0 (100.0) 100.0 (100.0) Area Urban 100.0 99.7 100.0 99.8 100.0 Other 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 98.8 Mother’s education None (*) (*) (*) (*) (*) Primary (100.0) (98.6) (100.0) (99.4) (96.8) Secondary 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 Higher 100.0 100.0 (100.0) (100.0) (100.0) Cannot be determined - (*) (*) (*) (*) Wealth index quintile Poorest 100.0 (98.8) (100.0) (99.5) (97.4) Second (100.0) (100.0) (100.0) (100.0) (100.0) Middle 100.0 (100.0) 100.0 100.0 (100.0) Fourth 100.0 100.0 (100.0) (100.0) (100.0) Richest 100.0 100.0 (100.0) (100.0) (100.0) 1 Survey-specific indicator 7.S6 — Children reaching last grade of primary a The background characteristic “Ethnicity of household head” is not shown in the table due to small number of unweighted cases per disaggregation category ( ) Figures that are based on 25-49 unweighted cases  (*) Figures that are based on less than 25 unweighted cases  “-” denotes 0 unweighted cases in that cell Monitoring the situation of children and women 183 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 11 100.0 98.7 97.9   100.0 97.8 97.2 100.0 100.0 99.1   (100.0) (*) (*) 100.0 (97.2) (96.7) (100.0) (98.7) (97.1) (100.0) (100.0) (100.0)   100.0 98.3 97.8 100.0 99.1 97.9   - (*) (*) (100.0) (*) (*) 100.0 99.3 99.3 (100.0) (100.0) (100.0) (*) (*) -   (100.0) (*) (*) (*) (100.0) (*) (100.0) (98.7) (98.7) (100.0) (*) (*) (100.0) (*) (*) The primary school completion rate and transition rate to secondary education are presented in Table ED.7. The primary completion rate is the ratio of the total number of students, regardless of age, entering the last grade of primary school for the first time, to the number of children of primary graduation age at the beginning of the current (or most recent) school year. Table ED.7 shows that the primary school completion rate is 93 percent. Table DQ.18 in Annex D provides additional information on the distribution of children and youth 5-24 years of age by education level and the grade attended in the current school year. It can be noted that the majority of children of primary school completion age71 (13 years) currently attend school (98 percent). The largest percentage attends the last grade of primary school (80 percent). However, there are 11 percent of children who currently attend grade 7 as they probably enrolled into the primary school a year later than prescribed by the national legislation. 5 percent attend secondary education and 2 percent do not currently attend school. 71 These are the children that turned 13 years of age by the 1st of March 2013. 184 Serbia Multiple Indicator Cluster Survey 2014 and Serbia Roma Settlements Multiple Indicator Cluster Survey 2014 96 percent of the children who attended the last grade of primary school in the previous school year were found to be attending the first grade of secondary school in the school year of the survey. The table also provides the “effective” transition rate which takes account of the presence of repeaters in the final grade of primary school. This indicator better reflects situations in which pupils repeat the last grade of primary education but eventually make the transition to the secondary level. The simple transition rate tends to underestimate pupils’ progression to secondary school as it assumes that the repeaters never reach secondary school. The table shows that in total 96 percent of the children in the last grade of primary school are expected to move on to secondary school. As the transition rate and effective transition rate are the same, this indicates that there were no repeaters in the last grade of primary school. Table ED.7: Primary school completion and transition to secondary schoola Primary school completion rates and transition and effective transition rates to secondary school, Serbia, 2014   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 Effective transition rate to secondary school Number of children who were in the last grade of primary school the previous year and are not repeating that grade in the current school year Total 93.4 152 96.3 217 96.3 217 Sex   Male 90.5 93 94.6 118 94.6 118 Female 97.9 59 98.4 99 98.4 99 Region   Belgrade (*) 20 (86.4) 39 (86.4) 39 Vojvodina (95.5) 48 (100.0) 53 (100.0) 53 Sumadija and Western Serbia (101.2) 41 96.1 66 96.1 66 Southern and Eastern Serbia (87.3) 42 (100.0) 58 (100.0) 58 Area   Urban 91.9 83 95.8 127 95.8 127 Other 95.2 69 97.1 90 97.1 90 Mother’s education   None (*) 3 (*) 2 (*) 2 Primary (92.1) 22 (*) 26 (*) 26 Secondary 89.4 89 98.9 136 98.9 136 Higher (*) 36 (100.0) 42 (100.0) 42 Cannot be determined (*) 2 (*) 11 (*) 11 Wealth index quintile   Poorest (66.3) 22 (81.9) 36 (81.9) 36 Second (89.4) 40 (100.0) 55 (100.0) 55 Middle (102.3) 40 (95.3) 33 (95.3) 33 Fourth (*) 20 (100.0) 42 (100.0) 42 Richest (*) 30 (100.0) 51 (100.0) 51 1 Survey-specific indicator 7.S7 — Primary completion rate 2 Survey-specific indicator 7.S8 — Transition rate to secondary school a The background characteristic “Ethnicity of household head” is not shown in the table due to small number of unweighted cases per disaggregation category  ( ) 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 185 The ratio of girls to boys attending primary and secondary education is provided in Table ED.8. These ratios are better known as the Gender Parity Index (GPI). Notice that the ratios included here are obtained from net attendance ratios rather than gross attendance ratios. The latter provide an erroneous description of the GPI mainly because, in most cases, the majority of over-age children attending primary education tend to be boys. The table shows that gender parity for primary school is 0.99 indicating that there is no difference in the attendance of girls and boys at the primary school level. Notable differences in gender parity in favour of girls are noticed at the secondary school level (1.08), particularly in the Belgrade region (1.19) and among children from the poorest households (1.22). Table ED.8: Education gender parity Ratio of adjusted net attendance ratios of girls to boys, in primary and secondary school, Serbia, 2014   Primary school 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 Total 97.9 99.1 0.99 93.0 86.0 1.08 Region   Belgrade 95.3 99.8 0.96 97.9 82.1 1.19 Vojvodina 98.2 98.8 0.99 88.7 85.6 1.04 Sumadija and Western Serbia 98.0 98.1 1.00 91.1 84.5 1.08 Southern and Eastern Serbia 99.5 100.0 0.99 95.4 91.2 1.05 Area   Urban 98.5 99.7 0.99 93.9 87.3 1.08 Other 97.2 98.1 0.99 91.7 84.1 1.09 Mother’s education   None (*) (*) (*) (*) (*) (*) Primary 97.7 99.5 0.98 (92.4) (78.1) (1.18) Secondary 98.7 99.1 1.00 94.8 96.3 0.98 Higher 97.0 100.0 0.97 (100.0) (98.2) (1.02) Cannot be determineda na na na 89.7 73.8 1.22 Wealth index quintile   Poorest 93.6 97.6 0.96 83.3 68.2 1.22 Second 99.8 97.3 1.03 92.8 85.7 1.08 Middle 99.8 100.0 1.00 94.6 85.1 1.11 Fourth 99.3 99.9 0.99 91.9 89.3 1.03 Richest 97.0 100.0 0.97 98.1 96.7 1.01 Ethnicity of household head   Serbian 98.9 100.0 0.99 94.3 89.1 1.06 Hungarian (96.4) (99.5) (0.97) (*) (*) (*) Bosnian (100.0) (*) (*) (*) (*) (*) Roma 93.2 90.8 1.03 (*) (*) (*) Other (100.0) (99.4) (1.01) (*) (*) (*) Does not want to declare (*) (*) (*) (*) (*) (*) Missing/DK - (*) - (*) - - 1 Survey-specific indicator 7.S9 — Gender parity index (primary school) 2 Survey-specific indicator 7.S10 — Gender parity index (secondary school) a Children age 15 or higher at the time of the interview whose mothers were not living in the household na: not applicable ( ) Figures that are based on 25-49 unweighted cases (*) Figures that are based on less than 25 unweighted cases  “-” denotes 0 unweighted cases in that cell 186 Serbia Multiple Indicator Cluster Survey 2014 and Serbia Roma Settlements Multiple Indicator Cluster Survey 2014 The percentage of girls in the total out of school population, in both primary and secondary school, are provided in Table ED.9. The table shows that at the primary school level, the percentage of out-of-school children is generally very low (1 percent) so that the percentage of girls in the out-of-school population is also very low and due to the small number of cases it is not shown in the table. At the secondary school level, the percentage of out-of-school children is 8 percent and the share of girls in the out-of-school population is 24 percent. Table ED.9: Out of school gender parity Percentage of girls in the total out of school population, in primary and secondary school, Serbia, 2014 Primary school Secondary school Percentage of out of school children Number of children of primary school age Percentage of girls in the total out of school population of primary school age Number of children of primary school age out of school Percentage of out of school children Number of children of secondary school age Percentage of girls in the total out of school population of secondary school age Number of children of secondary school age out of school Total 1.0 1570 (*) 16 8.0 900 23.7 72 Region   Belgrade 0.5 308 (*) 2 8.2 170 (*) 14 Vojvodina 1.5 455 (*) 7 8.0 217 42.5 17 Sumadija and Western Serbia 1.7 446 (*) 8 9.9 268 (*) 27 Southern and Eastern Serbia 0.1 361 (*) 0 5.8 245 (*) 14 Area   Urban 0.3 924 (*) 3 6.8 521 (28.8) 36 Other 2.1 646 (*) 13 9.6 379 (18.7) 37 Mother’s education   None (26.0) 19 (*) 5 (*) 6 (*) 4 Primary 0.5 248 (*) 1 14.4 78 (*) 11 Secondary 1.1 939 (*) 10 0.9 373 (*) 3 Higher 0.0 343 - - 0.0 106 - - Cannot be determineda na na na na 15.9 339 25.9 54 Wealth index quintile   Poorest 3.8 278 (*) 11 22.6 134 (19.4) 30 Second 1.4 279 (*) 4 10.6 223 31.7 24 Middle 0.0 356 - - 4.3 162 (*) 7 Fourth 0.5 332 (*) 2 6.1 179 (*) 11 Richest 0.0 326 - - 0.3 202 (*) 1 Ethnicity of household head   Serbian 0.4 1308 (*) 5 5.7 782 21.5 44 Hungarian 1.9 82 (*) 2 (0.6) 38 (*) 0 Bosnian 8.4 44 (*) 4 (*) 16 (*) 1 Roma 7.7 76 (*) 6 (62.7) 31 (*) 20 Other 0.3 48 (*) 0 (*) 25 (*) 5 Does not want to declare (*) 12 - - (*) 6 (*) 3 Missing/DK (*) 0 - - (*) 1 - - a Children age 15 or higher at the time of the interview whose mothers were not living in the household na: not applicable ( ) Figures that are based on 25-49 unweighted cases  (*) Figures that are based on less than 25 unweighted cases  “-” denotes 0 unweighted cases in that cell Monitoring the situation of children and women 187 Figure ED.1 brings together all of the attendance and progression related education indicators covered in this chapter, by sex. Information on attendance to early childhood education is also included, which was covered in Chapter 9, in Table CD.1. Some differences in education indicators by sex in Serbia are noted for primary school completion rate and secondary school attendance (both indicators are lower for boys). Also, there are some differences between boys and girls regarding the net intake rate in primary education that are more favourable for boys. Figure ED.1: Education indicators by sex, Serbia, 2014 The classification of primary school and secondary school education in the Republic of Serbia according to ISCED 2011 comprises of the following: (i) ISCED 1 — primary school, corresponding to grades 1-4 of primary school (typically for ages 6-9 years); (ii) ISCED 2 — lower secondary school, corresponding to grades 5-8 of primary school within the national education system (typically for ages 10-13 years); and (iii) ISCED 3 — upper secondary school, corresponding to grades 1-4 of secondary school within the national education system (typically for ages 14-18 years). For global reporting purposes, lower secondary school and upper secondary school are combined as secondary school education. Age is adjusted to take into account age eligibility criteria for starting primary school as per which children who turn 6 by the end of February are required to enrol in the first grade of primary school in September of the same year. Since age eligibility criteria for starting primary school changed in Serbia in 2006, separate calculations were applied for children born in 1998 or earlier (who enrolled as per the old legislation) and those born afterwards. For the first group, the appropriate age at the start of primary school refers to the age in the 2013 calendar year, while for the second group adjusted age is the age of the child (in completed years) by the end of February 2013. Table ED.10 ISCED shows key education indicators for Serbia according to the ISCED 2011 education classification. 98 98 100 94 91 98 95 98 52 49 99 98 86 93 97 99 Boys Girls Note: All indicator values are in percent Children reaching last grade of primary School readiness Net intake rate in primary Primary school completion rate Transition rate to secondary school Primary school attendance Secondary school attendance Attendance to early childhood education 188 Serbia Multiple Indicator Cluster Survey 2014 and Serbia Roma Settlements Multiple Indicator Cluster Survey 2014 Table ED.10 ISCED: Summary of education indicators (ISCEDa) Summary of education indicators classified according to the International Standard Classification of Education (ISCED), Serbia, 2014   Primary school (ISCED 1) Transition(ISCED 1 to 2) Secondary school (ISCED 2+3) Percentage of children of primary school entry age entering grade 11 Net attendance ratio (adjusted)2 Percent who reach grade 4 of those who enter grade 13 Primary school completion rate4 Transition rate to secondary school5 Net attendance ratio (adjusted)6 Total 97.0 98.8 99.8 92.4 99.6 93.5 Sex   Male 99.8 98.9 99.6 115.5 99.4 91.9 Female 94.0 98.8 100.0 71.0 99.8 95.3 Gender parity index (GPI)7, 8 na 1.00 na na na 1.04 1 MICS indicator 7.3 — Net intake rate in primary education 2 MICS indicator 7.4; MDG indicator 2.1 — Primary school net attendance ratio (adjusted) 3 MICS indicator 7.6; MDG indicator 2.2 — Children reaching last grade of primary 4 MICS indicator 7.7 — Primary completion rate 5 MICS indicator 7.8 — Transition rate to secondary school 6 MICS indicator 7.5 — Secondary school net attendance ratio (adjusted) 7 MICS indicator 7.9; MDG indicator 3.1 — Gender parity index (primary school) 8 MICS indicator 7.10; MDG indicator 3.1 — Gender parity index (secondary school) a ISCED 1 are grades 1-4 of primary school, ISCED 2 are grades 5-8 of primary school, and ISCED 3 are grades 1-4 of secondary school within the national education system. na: not applicable Monitoring the situation of children and women 189Monitoring the situation of children and women 189 Primary and Secondary School Participation in Roma Settlements Of children from Roma settlements in Serbia who are of primary school entry age (age 672), only 69 percent attend the first grade of primary school (Table ED.3R). Sex differentials do exist as 76 percent of girls enter first grade on time compared to 63 percent of boys. Significant differentials are present by urban-other areas. Children’s participation in primary school is timelier in other areas (82 percent) than in urban areas (65 percent). A positive correlation with socioeconomic status is observed. In richest households, the proportion is around 93 percent, while among children living in the poorest households, the proportion is 49 percent. However, the data as per the wealth index quintiles should be treated with caution due to the small number of cases. Table ED.3R: Primary school entry Percentage of children of primary school entry age entering grade 1 (net intake rate), Serbia Roma Settlements, 2014   Percentage of children of primary school entry age entering grade 11 Number of children of primary school entry age Total 69.1 200 Sex   Male 63.0 104 Female 75.6 97 Area   Urban 65.1 153 Other 81.9 48 Mother’s education   None 50.8 67 Primary 76.7 120 Secondary or higher (*) 12 Cannot be determined (*) 1 Wealth index quintile   Poorest 49.0 57 Second (67.8) 36 Middle (73.6) 41 Fourth (79.2) 39 Richest (92.7) 26 Wealth index   Poorest 60 percent 61.6 135 Richest 40 percent 84.6 65 1 MICS indicator 7.3 — Net intake rate in primary education ( ) Figures that are based on 25-49 unweighted cases  (*) Figures that are based on less than 25 unweighted cases  Table ED.4R provides the percentage of children of primary school age 6 to 13 years living in Roma settlements who attend primary or secondary school73 and those who are out of school. The majority of children of primary school age attend school (85 percent). However, 15 percent of children of this age are out of school. Lower attendance is present among Roma children living in households within the poorest wealth quintile (66 percent) compared to children living in households in the richest wealth quintile (97 percent). In addition, the percentage of children who attend school increases with the 72 The national education system classification comprises 8 grades of obligatory primary school education (typically for ages 6-13 years; children who turn 6 by the end of February are required to enrol in the first grade of primary school in September of the same year), and 4 grades of secondary school education (typically for ages 14-18 years). Age is adjusted to take into account age eligibility criteria for starting primary school. Since age eligibility criteria for starting primary school changed in Serbia in 2006, separate calculations were applied for children born in 1998 or earlier and those born afterwards. For the first group, the appropriate age at the start of primary school refers to the age in the 2013 calendar year, while for the second group, adjusted age is the age of the child (in completed years) by the end of February 2013. 73 Ratios presented in this table are “adjusted” since they include not only primary school attendance, but also secondary school attendance in the numerator. 190 Serbia Multiple Indicator Cluster Survey 2014 and Serbia Roma Settlements Multiple Indicator Cluster Survey 2014190 Serbia Multiple Indicator Cluster Survey 2014 and Serbia Roma Settlements Multiple Indicator Cluster Survey 2014 mother’s education; 95 percent of children whose mothers have secondary or higher education attend school, compared to 75 percent of children whose mother are without education. The percentage of out-of-school children is the highest among the children from the poorest households (33 percent) and the lowest among the children from the richest households (3 percent). A high percentage (31 percent) of out-of-school children age 6 years indicates that children from Roma settlements are not enrolling in primary school on time. The percentage of out-of school children is relatively smaller among children age 7-9 years which corresponds with the 2nd, 3rd and 4th grade of primary school. As children transition to higher grades (5th to 8th), the percentages of out-of school children are once again higher. Table ED.4R: Primary school attendance and out of school children Percentage of children of primary school age attending primary or secondary school (adjusted net attendance ratio), percentage attending preschool, and percentage out of school, Serbia Roma Settlements, 2014   Male Net attendance ratio (adjusted) Percentage of children: Number of children Net attendance ratio (adjusted) Percentage of Not attending school or preschool Attending preschool Out of school a Not attending school or preschool Attending preschool Total 84.5 14.5 0.9 15.4 705 85.2 13.3 1.2 Area  Urban 84.5 14.4 1.0 15.4 542 84.4 13.8 1.4 Other 84.6 15.0 0.4 15.4 163 88.2 11.1 0.7 Ageb 6 63.0 30.9 6.1 37.0 104 75.6 18.1 5.6 7 91.6 8.4 0.0 8.4 82 89.4 9.9 0.7 8 92.6 7.4 0.0 7.4 87 89.4 7.6 3.0 9 93.7 6.3 0.0 6.3 107 91.5 7.8 0.0 10 87.0 13.0 0.0 13.0 83 84.5 15.5 0.0 11 82.8 17.2 0.0 17.2 80 79.7 19.4 0.0 12 85.6 14.4 0.0 14.4 83 87.8 11.6 0.0 13 81.9 17.3 0.0 17.3 80 80.5 19.5 0.0 Mother’s education  None 74.2 25.3 0.2 25.5 190 75.2 23.3 0.6 Primary 87.9 10.8 1.3 12.1 452 88.3 10.0 1.6 Secondary or higher 96.6 3.4 0.0 3.4 55 (93.0) (7.0) (0.0) Cannot be determined (*) (*) (*) (*) 8 (*) (*) (*) Wealth index quintile  Poorest 65.5 34.1 0.0 34.1 161 67.0 29.7 2.2 Second 80.4 16.0 3.6 19.6 144 91.7 5.3 2.6 Middle 84.6 14.7 0.7 15.4 144 83.3 15.7 1.1 Fourth 97.1 2.9 0.0 2.9 115 91.2 8.8 0.0 Richest 100.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 141 94.3 5.7 0.0 Wealth index  Poorest 60 percent 76.4 22.1 1.4 23.5 449 80.8 16.7 2.0 Richest 40 percent 98.7 1.3 0.0 1.3 256 92.6 7.4 0.0 1 Survey-specific indicator 7.S4 — Primary school net attendance ratio (adjusted) a The percentage of children of primary school age out of school are those not attending school and those attending preschool b Age is adjusted to take into account age eligibility criteria for starting primary school. Since age eligibility criteria for starting primary school changed in Serbia in 2006, separate calculations were applied for children born in 1998 or earlier and those born afterwards. For the first group, the appropriate age at the start of primary school refers to the age in the 2013 calendar year, while for the second group adjusted age is the age of the child (in completed years) by the end of February 2013. ( ) 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 191Monitoring the situation of children and women 191 Female Total children: Number of children Net attendance ratio (adjusted)1 Percentage of children: Number of children Out of schoola Not attending school or preschool Attending preschool Out of school a 14.5 819 84.9 13.8 1.1 14.9 1524 15.2 653 84.4 14.1 1.2 15.3 1194 11.8 167 86.4 13.0 0.6 13.6 330 23.7 97 69.1 24.7 5.9 30.6 200 10.6 122 90.3 9.3 0.4 9.7 204 10.6 127 90.7 7.5 1.8 9.3 214 7.8 87 92.7 7.0 0.0 7.0 195 15.5 121 85.5 14.5 0.0 14.5 204 19.4 90 81.1 18.4 0.0 18.4 169 11.6 100 86.8 12.9 0.0 12.9 183 19.5 76 81.2 18.4 0.0 18.4 156 23.9 212 74.7 24.2 0.4 24.6 402 11.5 566 88.1 10.3 1.5 11.8 1018 (7.0) 38 95.2 4.8 0.0 4.8 93 (*) 4 (*) (*) (*) (*) 11 31.9 171 66.3 31.8 1.1 32.9 332 7.9 181 86.7 10.0 3.0 13.1 325 16.7 165 83.9 15.2 0.9 16.1 309 8.8 166 93.7 6.3 0.0 6.3 281 5.7 136 97.2 2.8 0.0 2.8 277 18.6 517 78.8 19.2 1.7 20.9 966 7.4 302 95.4 4.6 0.0 4.6 558 The secondary school net attendance ratio is presented in Table ED.5R74. Data on secondary school attendance reveal a more dramatic picture than is the case with primary school attendance (where, about 22 percent of children in Roma settlements attend secondary school). 64 percent of secondary school aged children living in Roma settlements do not attend any school. 22 percent of secondary school age children attend secondary school while 14 percent attend primary school instead of secondary school. There are notable differences in secondary school attendance between girls (15 percent) and boys (28 percent). In addition, attendance to secondary education is more prevalent among children whose mothers have primary education (31 percent), than children whose mothers have no education (9 percent). The net attendance ratio is about eight times lower in the poorest wealth quintile (5 percent) than in the richest wealth quintile (40 percent). 74 Ratios presented in this table are “adjusted” since they include not only secondary school attendance, but also attendance to higher levels in the numerator. 192 Serbia Multiple Indicator Cluster Survey 2014 and Serbia Roma Settlements Multiple Indicator Cluster Survey 2014192 Serbia Multiple Indicator Cluster Survey 2014 and Serbia Roma Settlements Multiple Indicator Cluster Survey 2014 Table ED.5R: Secondary school attendance and out of school children Percentage of children of secondary school age attending secondary school or higher (adjusted net attendance ratio), percentage attending primary school, and percentage out of school, Serbia Roma Settlements, 2014 Male Female Total Net attendance ratio (adjusted) Percentage of children: Number of children Net attendance ratio (adjusted) Percentage of children: Number of children Net attendance ratio (adjusted)1 Percentage of children: Number of children Attending primary school Out of schoola Attending primary school Out of schoola Attending primary school Out of schoola Total 28.0 15.7 55.7 336 14.9 11.4 73.0 319 21.6 13.6 64.2 655 Area  Urban 31.4 17.9 50.3 242 14.5 11.1 73.5 239 23.0 14.5 61.8 481 Other 19.2 10.1 69.9 94 16.0 12.4 71.6 80 17.7 11.2 70.7 174 Ageb  14 (*) (*) (*) 9 (*) (*) (*) 25 (10.9) (38.6) (50.5) 33 15 34.2 36.4 28.6 82 12.0 27.0 60.0 65 24.4 32.2 42.5 147 16 31.5 14.1 53.7 89 10.8 12.5 76.0 60 23.1 13.5 62.7 149 17 24.8 5.2 69.4 91 18.2 1.4 80.4 82 21.7 3.4 74.6 173 18 23.0 3.6 73.3 65 17.1 0.7 80.8 88 19.6 1.9 77.6 152 Mother’s education  None 13.3 25.7 59.5 70 (4.0) (28.1) (66.7) 52 9.3 26.7 62.6 122 Primary 34.5 12.7 52.8 141 24.9 21.2 53.4 83 31.0 15.8 53.0 224 Secondary or higher (*) (*) (*) 16 (*) (*) (*) 3 (*) (*) (*) 19 Cannot be determinedc 23.2 13.7 62.5 108 13.7 1.4 84.2 182 17.2 6.0 76.1 290 Wealth index quintile  Poorest 6.2 15.6 75.9 79 3.1 5.7 87.9 73 4.7 10.9 81.7 152 Second (9.8) (17.4) (72.8) 61 6.1 20.8 73.1 66 7.9 19.2 72.9 127 Middle 25.2 27.1 47.7 63 (16.3) (15.8) (67.9) 48 21.4 22.2 56.4 111 Fourth (47.7) (4.4) (47.9) 66 21.7 11.1 67.2 55 35.9 7.5 56.6 120 Richest 53.7 14.6 31.6 67 27.6 6.3 66.1 78 39.6 10.1 50.3 145 Wealth index  Poorest 60 percent 13.2 19.8 66.2 203 7.5 13.6 77.6 186 10.5 16.8 71.6 390 Richest 40 percent 50.7 9.6 39.7 132 25.2 8.3 66.6 133 37.9 8.9 53.2 265 1 Survey-specific indicator 7.S5 — Secondary school net attendance ratio (adjusted) a The percentage of children of secondary school age out of school are those who are not attending primary, secondary, or higher education b Age is adjusted to take into account age eligibility criteria for starting primary school. Since age eligibility criteria for starting primary school changed in Serbia in 2006, separate calculations were applied for children born in 1998 or earlier and those born afterwards. For the first group, the appropriate age at the start of primary school refers to the age in the 2013 calendar year, while for the second group adjusted age is the age of the child (in completed years) by the end of February 2013. c Children age 15 or higher at the time of the interview whose mothers were not living in the household ( ) Figures that are based on 25-49 unweighted cases  (*) Figures that are based on less than 25 unweighted cases Significant disparity is also observed between boys and girls related to the out-of-school indicator. Namely, among 64 percent of secondary school age children who are out-of-school, there are 56 percent of boys and 73 percent of girls. The highest percentage of secondary school age children out-of-school is among those living in households in the poorest wealth quintile (82 percent). The percentage of children living in Roma settlements entering first grade, who eventually reach the last grade of primary school is presented in Table ED.6R. In Serbia, grade 8, which is the last grade of primary education, corresponds to ISCED 2 level. For global comparison purposes ISCED tables can be found in Annex G. Of all the children from Roma settlements starting grade one, about two thirds (77 percent) will eventually reach the last grade. The proportion among males is higher (81 percent) than females (73 percent), however these results should be treated with caution due to the small number of cases. Monitoring the situation of children and women 193Monitoring the situation of children and women 193 Table ED.6R: Children reaching last grade of primary school 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), Serbia Roma Settlements, 2014 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 Total 99.4 98.5 98.5 94.7 91.0 94.5 98.1 77.0 Sex   Male 98.6 98.7 99.3 93.1 92.1 99.1 (99.1) (81.3) Female 100.0 98.4 97.7 95.9 90.0 90.9 (97.0) (73.1) Area   Urban 99.7 98.5 98.6 95.8 92.5 93.2 98.9 79.1 Other (98.5) 98.4 98.3 (91.1) (84.7) (*) (95.9) (*) Mother’s education   None (99.0) (100.0) 98.8 (97.9) (90.6) (96.7) (*) (*) Primary 99.5 98.6 98.3 95.1 97.6 93.8 100.0 84.0 Secondary or higher (*) (*) (*) (*) (*) (*) (*) (*) Cannot be determined (*) (*) - - (*) (*) (*) - Wealth index quintile  Poorest (98.7) 96.7 96.0 (87.6) (64.3) (*) (*) (*) Second (100.0) (100.0) (100.0) (88.1) (*) (*) (*) (*) Middle (98.2) (100.0) 98.0 (100.0) (96.4) (100.0) (*) * Fourth (100.0) (96.4) (98.3) (100.0) (92.3) (*) (*) (*) Richest (100.0) (*) (100.0) (100.0) (100.0) (*) (100.0) (*) Wealth index   Poorest 60 percent 99.0 99.2 98.1 90.8 86.8 93.7 (99.3) (70.6) Richest 40 percent 100.0 97.5 99.1 100.0 96.6 (95.6) (96.9) (86.4) 1 Survey-specific indicator 7.S6 — Children reaching last grade of primary ( ) Figures that are based on 25-49 unweighted cases  (*) Figures that are based on less than 25 unweighted cases  “-” denotes 0 unweighted cases in that cell  194 Serbia Multiple Indicator Cluster Survey 2014 and Serbia Roma Settlements Multiple Indicator Cluster Survey 2014194 Serbia Multiple Indicator Cluster Survey 2014 and Serbia Roma Settlements Multiple Indicator Cluster Survey 2014 Table ED.7R shows that the primary school completion rate is 64 percent. Table DQ.18R in Annex D provides additional information on the distribution of children and youth 5-24 years of age by education level and the grade attended in the current school year. It can be noted that 81 percent of children of the primary school completion age75 (13 years) currently attend school. About one third of children this age currently attend the last grade of primary school (37 percent). The rest of the children of primary school completion age attending school are distributed through lower grades of primary school. Only 59 percent of the children who attended the last grade of primary school in the previous school year were found to be attending the first grade of secondary school in the school year of the survey. The table shows that in total, 62 percent of the children in the last grade of primary school are expected to move on to secondary school. Table ED.7R: Primary school completion and transition to secondary school Primary school completion rates and transition and effective transition rates to secondary school, Serbia Roma Settlements, 2014   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 Effective transition rate to secondary school Number of children who were in the last grade of primary school the previous year and are not repeating that grade in the current school year Total 64.0 156 58.7 91 62.2 86 Sex   Male 65.1 80 (72.2) 54 (78.3) 49 Female 62.8 76 (39.4) 38 (40.5) 37 Area   Urban 56.5 132 57.8 71 61.4 67 Other (105.3) 24 (*) 20 (*) 19 Mother’s education   None (50.3) 33 (*) 8 (*) 8 Primary 56.1 112 (70.6) 43 (72.3) 42 Secondary or higher (*) 9 (*) 8 (*) 8 Cannot be determined (*) 2 (*) 32 (*) 28 Wealth index quintile   Poorest (22.5) 31 (*) 6 (*) 6 Second (*) 32 (*) 5 (*) 5 Middle (57.7) 28 (*) 13 (*) 13 Fourth (*) 19 (55.1) 39 (55.1) 39 Richest (73.2) 45 (53.9) 28 (*) 23 Wealth index   Poorest 60 percent 55.3 92 (70.0) 24 (70.0) 24 Richest 40 percent 76.3 64 54.6 67 59.1 62 1 Survey-specific indicator 7.S7 — Primary completion rate 2 Survey-specific indicator 7.S8 — Transition rate to secondary school ( ) Figures that are based on 25-49 unweighted cases  (*) Figures that are based on less than 25 unweighted cases 75 These are the children that turned 13 years of age by the 1st of March 2013. Monitoring the situation of children and women 195Monitoring the situation of children and women 195 The ratio of girls to boys attending primary and secondary education is provided in Table ED.8R. These ratios are better known as the Gender Parity Index (GPI). The table shows that gender parity for primary school is close to 1.00 (1.01), indicating no difference in the attendance of girls and boys to primary school. However, the indicator drops to 0.53 for secondary education. The GPI for secondary education indicates that there are more boys than girls in secondary education, or in other words, that girls are disadvantaged in secondary education. The GPI for secondary education shows even higher disparity between girls and boys living in urban (0.46) versus other areas (0.83). Table ED.8R: Education gender parity Ratio of adjusted net attendance ratios of girls to boys, in primary and secondary school, Serbia Roma Settlements, 2014   Primary school 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 Total 85.2 84.5 1.01 14.9 28.0 0.53 Area   Urban 84.4 84.5 1.00 14.5 31.4 0.46 Other 88.2 84.6 1.04 16.0 19.2 0.83 Mother’s education   None 75.2 74.2 1.01 (4.0) 13.3 (0.30) Primary 88.3 87.9 1.00 24.9 34.5 0.72 Secondary or higher (93.0) (96.6) (0.96) (*) (*) (*) Cannot be determineda na na na 13.7 23.2 0.59 Wealth index quintile   Poorest 67.0 65.5 1.02 3.1 6.2 0.50 Second 91.7 80.4 1.14 6.1 9.8 0.62 Middle 83.3 84.6 0.98 (16.3) 25.2 (0.65) Fourth 91.2 97.1 0.94 21.7 (47.7) (0.46) Richest 94.3 100.0 0.94 27.6 53.7 0.51 Wealth index   Poorest 60 percent 80.8 76.4 1.06 7.5 13.2 0.57 Richest 40 percent 92.6 98.7 0.94 25.2 50.7 0.50 1 Survey-specific indicator 7.S9 — Gender parity index (primary school) 2 Survey-specific indicator 7.S10 — Gender parity index (secondary school) a Children age 15 or higher at the time of the interview whose mothers were not living in the household na: not applicable ( ) Figures that are based on 25-49 unweighted cases  (*) Figures that are based on less than 25 unweighted cases The percentage of girls in the total out of school population, in both primary and secondary school, are provided in Table ED.9R. The table shows that at the primary school level girls account for slightly more than half (52 percent) of the out-of- school population. The share for girls is similar, at 56 percent, at the secondary level. 196 Serbia Multiple Indicator Cluster Survey 2014 and Serbia Roma Settlements Multiple Indicator Cluster Survey 2014196 Serbia Multiple Indicator Cluster Survey 2014 and Serbia Roma Settlements Multiple Indicator Cluster Survey 2014 Table ED.9R: Out of school gender parity Percentage of girls in the total out of school population, in primary and secondary school, Serbia Roma Settlements, 2014   Primary school Secondary school Percentage of out of school children Number of children of primary school age Percentage of girls in the total out of school population of primary school age Number of children of primary school age out of school Percentage of out of school children Number of children of secondary school age Percentage of girls in the total out of school population of secondary school age Number of children of secondary school age out of school Total 14.9 1524 52.2 227 64.2 655 55.5 420 Area   Urban 15.3 1194 54.3 183 61.8 481 59.1 298 Other 13.6 330 43.8 45 70.7 174 46.6 123 Mother’s education   None 24.6 402 51.2 99 62.6 122 45.3 76 Primary 11.8 1018 (54.5) 120 53.0 224 37.2 119 Secondary or higher 4.8 93 (*) 5 (*) 19 (*) 5 Cannot be determineda na na na na 76.1 290 69.4 221 Wealth index quintile   Poorest 32.9 332 (49.8) 109 81.7 152 51.8 124 Second 13.1 325 33.5 42 72.9 127 51.9 93 Middle 16.1 309 55.5 50 56.4 111 51.7 63 Fourth 6.3 281 (*) 18 56.6 120 53.7 68 Richest 2.8 277 (*) 8 50.3 145 71.2 73 Wealth index   Poorest 60 percent 20.9 966 47.8 202 71.6 390 51.8 279 Richest 40 percent 4.6 558 87.1 26 53.2 265 62.7 141 a Children age 15 or higher at the time of the interview whose mothers were not living in the household na: not applicable ( ) Figures that are based on 25-49 unweighted cases  (*) Figures that are based on less than 25 unweighted cases  Figure ED.1R: Education indicators by sex, Serbia Roma Settlements, 2014 81 79 63 76 65 63 (72) (39) 5 7 85 85 28 15 (81) (73) Boys Girls Note: All indicator values are in percent () Figures that are based on 25-49 unweighted cases Attendance to early childhood education Primary school attendance Secondary school attendance Children reaching last grade of primary School readiness Net intake rate in primary Primary school completion rate Transition rate to secondary school Monitoring the situation of children and women 197Monitoring the situation of children and women 197 Figure ED.1R brings together all of the attendance and progression related education indicators covered in this chapter, by sex. Information on attendance to early childhood education is also included, which was covered in Chapter 9, in Table CD.1R. The differences are notable for the net intake rate in primary school, where 63 percent of boys of primary school entry age enter grade one of primary school compared to 76 percent of girls this age. There are no differences in primary school attendance rates for boys and girls, but secondary school attendance rates show lower attendance for girls. The classification of primary school and secondary school education in the Republic of Serbia according to the ISCED 2011 comprises the following: (i) ISCED 1 — primary school, corresponding to grades 1-4 of primary school (typically for ages 6-9 years); (ii) ISCED 2 — lower secondary school, corresponding to grades 5-8 of primary school within the national education system (typically for ages 10-13 years); and (iii) ISCED 3 — upper secondary school, corresponding to grades 1-4 of secondary school within the national education system (typically for ages 14-18 years). For global reporting purposes, lower secondary school and upper secondary school are combined as secondary school education. Age is adjusted to take into account age eligibility criteria for starting primary school as per which children who turn 6 by the end of February are required to enrol in the first grade of primary school in September of the same year. Since age eligibility criteria for starting primary school changed in Serbia in 2006, separate calculations were applied for children born in 1998 or earlier (who enrolled as per the old legislation) and those born afterwards. For the first group, the appropriate age at the start of primary school refers to the age in the 2013 calendar year, while for the second group adjusted age is the age of the child (in completed years) by the end of February 2013. Table ED.10R ISCED shows key education indicators in Roma settlements according to the ISCED 2011 education classification. Table ED.10R ISCED: Summary of education indicators (ISCEDa) Summary of education indicators classified according to the International Standard Classification of Education (ISCED), Serbia, 2014   Primary school (ISCED 1) Transition(ISCED 1 to 2) Secondary school (ISCED 2+3) Percentage of children of primary school entry age entering grade 11 Net attendance ratio (adjusted)2 Percent who reach grade 4 of those who enter grade 13 Primary school completion rate4 Transition rate to secondary school5 Net attendance ratio (adjusted)6 Total 69.1 85.8 96.5 115.7 92.6 51.2 Sex  Male 63.0 84.6 96.6 149.1 88.4 54.8 Female 75.6 86.8 96.1 92.3 95.9 47.9 Gender parity index (GPI)7, 8 na 1.03 na na na 0.87 1 MICS indicator 7.3 — Net intake rate in primary education 2 MICS indicator 7.4; MDG indicator 2.1 — Primary school net attendance ratio (adjusted) 3 MICS indicator 7.6; MDG indicator 2.2 — Children reaching last grade of primary 4 MICS indicator 7.7 — Primary completion rate 5 MICS indicator 7.8 — Transition rate to secondary school 6 MICS indicator 7.5 — Secondary school net attendance ratio (adjusted) 7 MICS indicator 7.9; MDG indicator 3.1 — Gender parity index (primary school) 8 MICS indicator 7.10; MDG indicator 3.1 — Gender parity index (secondary school) a ISCED 1 are grades 1-4 of primary school, ISCED 2 are grades 5-8 of primary school, and ISCED 3 are grades 1-4 of secondary school within the national education system. na: not applicable 198 Serbia Multiple Indicator Cluster Survey 2014 and Serbia Roma Settlements Multiple Indicator Cluster Survey 2014 XIXI CHILD PROTECTION CHILD PROTECTION Birth Registration A name and nationality is every child’s right, enshrined in the Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC) and other international treaties. Yet the births of around one in four children under the age of five worldwide have never been recorded. This lack of formal recognition by the State usually means that a child is unable to obtain a birth certificate. As a result, he or she may be denied health care or education. Later in life, the lack of official identification documents can mean that a child may enter into marriage or the labour market, or be conscripted into the armed forces, before the legal age. In adulthood, birth certificates may be required to obtain social assistance or a job in the formal sector, to buy or prove the right to inherit property, to vote and to obtain a passport. Registering children at birth is the first step in securing their recognition before the law, safeguarding their rights, and ensuring that any violation of these rights does not go unnoticed.76 The Table CP.1 presents data on birth registration of children under five in Serbia. 76 United Nations Children’s Fund, Every Child’s Birth Right: Inequities and trends in birth registration, UNICEF, New York, 2013.   Children under age 5 whose Has birth certificate Seen Not seen Total 77.3 21.1 Sex Male 75.6 22.1 Female 79.1 20.0 Region Belgrade 81.6 18.0 Vojvodina 67.6 30.5 Sumadija and Western Serbia 77.8 19.3 Southern and Eastern Serbia 84.7 14.3 Area Urban 79.1 19.6 Other 74.2 23.7 Age 0-11 months 84.3 12.4 0-5 months 81.6 14.2 6-11 months 87.9 10.0 12-23 months 71.6 27.1 24-35 months 79.4 20.2 36-47 months 74.7 23.3 48-59 months 76.2 22.9 Mother’s education None (69.6) (12.8) Primary 72.0 23.8 Secondary 75.7 22.8 Higher 81.4 18.1 Wealth index quintile Poorest 66.1 28.6 Second 83.0 16.3 Middle 74.0 23.5 Fourth 79.7 19.9 Richest 80.5 18.9 Ethnicity of household head Serbian 76.2 22.4 Hungarian 81.2 18.8 Bosnian 91.9 1.4 Roma 72.8 20.0 Other 84.5 15.0 Does not want to declare (*) (*) Missing/DK (*) (*) 1 MICS indicator 8.1 — Birth registration a The number of children under age 5 without birth registration is less than 25 unweighted cases for all categories. For this reaso has been excluded from table CP.1 ( ) Figures that are based on 25-49 unweighted cases  (*) Figures that are based on less than 25 unweighted cases  Table CP.1: Birth registrationa 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, Serbia, 2014 Monitoring the situation of children and women 199 birth is registered with civil authorities Number of children under age 5No birth certificate Total registered1 1.0 99.4 2720   1.4 99.2 1400 0.6 99.6 1320   0.0 99.6 733 1.1 99.1 753 2.1 99.1 706 1.0 100.0 528   0.8 99.5 1722 1.4 99.2 998   1.7 98.4 566 1.8 97.6 321 1.6 99.5 245 0.9 99.6 489 0.4 100.0 465 1.4 99.4 545 0.7 99.8 655   (2.4) (84.7) 32 3.2 99.0 309 1.0 99.5 1380 0.4 99.9 999   2.4 97.1 411 0.6 100.0 425 2.6 100.0 522 0.2 99.9 609 0.1 99.6 752   1.0 99.6 2306 0.0 100.0 83 6.7 100.0 61 0.8 93.7 91 0.5 100.0 138 (*) (*) 40 (*) (*) 1 on, the percentage of children whose mother/caretaker knows how to register a child’s birth The births of 99 percent of children under five years in the 2014 Serbia MICS have been registered (Table CP.1). There are no significant variations in birth registration across different background characteristics. Slight differences are noted by ethnicity of the head of household, where the lowest percentage of children under 5 whose birth has been registered is among Roma (94 percent). 200 Serbia Multiple Indicator Cluster Survey 2014 and Serbia Roma Settlements Multiple Indicator Cluster Survey 2014200 Serbia Multiple Indicator Cluster Survey 2014 and Serbia Roma Settlements Multiple Indicator Cluster Survey 2014 Birth Registration in Roma Settlements The births of 95 percent of children under five years in Roma settlements have been registered (Table CP.1R). There are some variations in birth registration for children by age groups and it appears that there is a delay in the registration of children. Only 83 percent of children age 0-5 months are registered compared to higher averages for other age groups and the overall average. Birth registration becomes more prevalent with the increase of the mother’s education (89 percent of children whose mother has no education, compared to 100 percent of children whose mother has secondary or higher education). The birth registration rate is also somewhat lower among children from the poorest households (89 percent) compared to the other four quintiles (where the percentages range from 96-99 percent). The lack of adequate knowledge of how to register a child can present another major obstacle to the fulfilment of a child’s right to identity. Data show that 52 percent of mothers of unregistered children report not knowing how to register a child’s birth. Table CP.1R: Birth registration 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, Serbia Roma Settlements, 2014   Children under age 5 whose birth is registered with civil authorities Number of children under age 5 Children under age 5 whose birth is not registered Has birth certificate No birth certificate Total registered1 Percent of children whose mother/ caretaker knows how to register birth Number of children under age 5 without birth registrationSeen Not seen Total 55.9 34.9 4.6 95.3 1515 47.8 71 Sex   Male 59.8 31.5 2.6 93.9 787 (41.2) 48 Female 51.7 38.5 6.7 96.9 728 (*) 23 Area   Urban 54.6 35.5 4.8 94.9 1135 (42.1) 58 Other 59.8 32.9 3.9 96.7 380 (*) 13 Age   0-11 months 52.6 32.4 4.9 89.8 276 (*) 28 0-5 months 48.9 27.8 6.2 82.9 146 (*) 25 6-11 months 56.8 37.5 3.3 97.6 130 (*) 3 12-23 months 59.5 34.7 4.0 98.2 318 (*) 6 24-35 months 56.0 37.8 3.0 96.8 281 (*) 9 36-47 months 55.1 34.6 6.3 96.0 324 (*) 13 48-59 months 55.9 34.9 4.5 95.3 316 (*) 15 Mother’s education   None 43.2 40.7 4.9 88.9 361 (43.9) 40 Primary 60.3 31.8 4.9 97.0 1031 (52.8) 31 Secondary or higher 56.2 43.0 0.7 100.0 123 - 0 Wealth index quintile   Poorest 53.3 29.7 6.0 89.0 436 (43.6) 48 Second 61.3 33.3 3.8 98.4 317 (*) 5 Middle 49.5 40.7 6.2 96.3 300 (*) 11 Fourth 57.8 38.8 2.3 98.9 254 (*) 3 Richest 60.0 34.8 3.4 98.2 208 (*) 4 Wealth index   Poorest 60 percent 54.6 33.9 5.4 93.9 1053 (52.7) 64 Richest 40 percent 58.8 37.0 2.8 98.6 462 (*) 7 1 MICS indicator 8.1 — Birth registration ( ) Figures that are based on 25-49 unweighted cases  (*) Figures that are based on less than 25 unweighted cases  “-” denotes 0 unweighted cases in that cell  Monitoring the situation of children and women 201 Child Labour Children around the world are routinely engaged in paid and unpaid forms of work that are not harmful to them. However, they are classified as child labourers when they are either too young to work or are involved in hazardous activities that may compromise their physical, mental, social or educational development. Article 32 (1) of the Convention on the Rights of the Child states: “States Parties recognize the right of the child to be protected from economic exploitation and from performing any work that is likely to be hazardous or to interfere with the child’s education, or to be harmful to the child’s health or physical, mental, spiritual, moral or social development”. As per the Serbian Labour Law, the age of 15 years is set as a threshold for employment. The law defines that employed minors (i.e., those aged 15 to 17 years) cannot be engaged in jobs that include hard physical work, work under the ground, under water, at heights or in jobs that could negatively impact their health and life. Minors can work up to 35 hours per week or 8 hours per day without overtime or night work. Minors can be employed only with the consent of their parents or guardians. The child labour module was administered for children age 5-17 and includes questions on the type of work a child does and the number of hours he or she is engaged in it. Data are collected on both economic activities (paid or unpaid work for someone who is not a member of the household, work for a family farm or business) and domestic work (household chores such as cooking, cleaning or caring for children, as well as collecting firewood or fetching water). The module also collects information on hazardous working conditions.77 , 78 Table CP.2 presents children’s involvement in economic activities. The methodology of the MICS Indicator on Child Labour uses three age-specific thresholds for the number of hours a child can perform economic activity without it being classified as in child labour. A child that performed economic activities during the last week for more than the age-specific number of hours is classified as in child labour:  age 5-11: 1 hour or more  age 12-14: 14 hours or more  age 15-17: 43 hours or more Table CP.2 presents the results of involvement in economic activities. Among children age 5-11 years 12 percent are involved in an economic activity for at least one hour. Among children age 12-14 years, 20 percent are involved in an economic activity for less than 14 hours, while 2 percent are involved for 14 hours or more. 26 percent of children age 15-17 years are involved in an economic activity for less than 43 hours while there are no children involved in economic activity for 43 hours or more. Children from other areas are generally more involved in economic activities than their peers from urban areas. 77 United Nations Children’s Fund, How Sensitive Are Estimates of Child Labour to Definitions?, MICS Methodological Paper No. 1, UNICEF, New York, 2012. 78 The Child Labour module and the Child Discipline module were administered using random selection of a single child in all households with one or more children age 1-17 (See Appendix F: Questionnaires). The Child Labour module was administered if the selected child was age 5-17 and the Child Discipline module if the child was age 1-14 years old. To account for the random selection, the household sample weight is multiplied by the total number of children age 1-17 in each household. 202 Serbia Multiple Indicator Cluster Survey 2014 and Serbia Roma Settlements Multiple Indicator Cluster Survey 2014 Table CP.2: Children’s involvement in economic activities Percentage of children by involvement in economic activities during the last week, according to age groups, Serbia, 2014 Percentage of children age 5-11 years involved in economic activity for at least one hour Number of children age 5-11 years Percentage of children age 12-14 years involved in: Number of children age 12-14 years Percentage of children age 15-17 years involved in: Number of children age 15-17 years Economic activity less than 14 hours Economic activity for 14 hours or more Economic activity less than 43 hours Economic activity for 43 hours or more Total 12.0 2183 20.1 1.9 965 26.0 0.0 1020 Sex   Male 13.9 1060 26.2 2.9 481 34.0 0.0 594 Female 10.1 1123 14.0 1.0 485 15.0 0.0 426 Region   Belgrade 6.9 392 25.1 0.0 207 20.4 0.0 215 Vojvodina 11.6 646 13.3 1.5 262 24.0 0.0 257 Sumadija and Western Serbia 16.1 646 18.4 3.5 268 27.7 0.0 299 Southern and Eastern Serbia 10.9 499 25.2 2.3 228 31.0 0.0 249 Area   Urban 6.3 1288 10.7 0.7 558 18.2 0.0 602 Other 20.1 895 32.9 3.6 408 37.3 0.0 417 School attendance   Yes 12.3 2027 20.4 1.6 953 26.0 0.0 967 No 7.1 156 (*) (*) 12 (26.5) (0.0) 52 Mother’s education   None (4.3) 21 (*) (*) 17 (*) (*) 4 Primary 19.5 299 25.7 5.4 155 34.8 0.0 133 Secondary 13.1 1313 24.6 1.8 565 26.2 0.0 615 Higher 4.7 525 4.9 0.0 210 11.2 0.0 176 Cannot be determineda na na na na na 40.0 0.0 92 Wealth index quintile   Poorest 14.1 363 25.7 4.7 196 27.2 0.0 156 Second 16.5 356 24.6 2.4 200 33.3 0.0 210 Middle 15.5 529 23.1 2.1 214 32.8 0.0 178 Fourth 6.5 463 12.6 0.0 182 33.8 0.0 204 Richest 8.3 472 12.6 0.0 173 9.5 0.0 271 Ethnicity of household head   Serbian 11.7 1772 20.5 1.8 843 25.4 0.0 899 Hungarian 30.8 118 (*) (*) 39 (50.2) (0.0) 42 Bosnian (3.6) 80 (*) (*) 14 (*) (*) 13 Roma 0.9 103 (11.2) (10.0) 38 (*) (*) 42 Other 14.3 87 (*) (*) 23 (*) (*) 19 Does not want to declare (*) 23 (*) (*) 9 (*) (*) 5 Missing/DK (*) 1 - - 0 - - 0 a Children age 15 or higher at the time of the interview whose mothers were not living in the household na: not applicable ( ) Figures that are based on 25-49 unweighted cases  (*) Figures that are based on less than 25 unweighted cases  “-” denotes 0 unweighted cases in that cell  Table CP.3 presents children’s involvement in household chores. As for the economic activity above, the methodology also uses age-specific thresholds for the number of hours a child can perform household chores without it being classified as child labour. A child that performed household chores during the last week for more than the age-specific number of hours is classified as in child labour:  age 5-11 and age 12-14: 28 hours or more  age 15-17: 43 hours or more. Monitoring the situation of children and women 203 Among children age 5-11 years, 57 percent are involved in household chores for less than 28 hours. For children age 12-14 years that percentage is much higher and reaches 86 percent. 82 percent of children age 15-17 years are involved in household chores for less than 43 hours. Unlike involvement in economic activities, the involvement of girls in household chores is higher than for boys, except for older children, age 15-17 years, where the percentages for boys and girls are similar. Involvement of children age 5-11 years in household chores for less than 28 hours is four times higher among children attending school than among those not attending (60 percent compared to 15 percent). The percentage of children involved in household chores for a number of hours that would define it as child labour in all age groups is negligible. Table CP.3: Children’s involvement in household chores Percentage of children by involvement in household chores during the last week, according to age groups, Serbia, 2014   Percentage of children age 5-11 years involved in: Number of children age 5-11 years Percentage of children age 12-14 years involved in: Number of children age 12-14 years Percentage of children age 15-17 years involved in: Number of children age 15-17 years Household chores less than 28 hours Household chores for 28 hours or more Household chores less than 28 hours Household chores for 28 hours or more Household chores less than 43 hours Household chores for 43 hours or more Total 56.8 0.1 2183 85.7 0.0 965 82.4 0.4 1020 Sex   Male 53.6 0.0 1060 80.4 0.0 481 84.2 0.0 594 Female 59.9 0.1 1123 90.9 0.0 485 80.0 1.0 426 Region   Belgrade 45.2 0.0 392 81.3 0.0 207 88.2 0.0 215 Vojvodina 60.4 0.0 646 89.3 0.0 262 82.3 1.5 257 Sumadija and Western Serbia 55.4 0.0 646 89.4 0.0 268 79.0 0.0 299 Southern and Eastern Serbia 63.3 0.3 499 81.1 0.0 228 81.8 0.2 249 Area   Urban 55.8 0.1 1288 84.0 0.0 558 87.3 0.1 602 Other 58.4 0.0 895 88.0 0.0 408 75.4 0.9 417 School attendance   Yes 60.1 0.1 2027 86.2 0.0 953 82.3 0.1 967 No 15.0 0.0 156 (*) (*) 12 (*) (*) 52 Mother’s education   None (80.5) (0.0) 21 (*) (*) 17 (*) (*) 4 Primary 63.7 0.0 299 88.8 0.0 155 83.1 2.9 133 Secondary 56.8 0.1 1313 83.5 0.0 565 81.6 0.0 615 Higher 52.6 0.0 525 88.8 0.0 210 86.1 0.0 176 Cannot be determineda na na na na na na 79.3 0.6 92 Wealth index quintile   Poorest 59.5 0.0 363 84.9 0.0 196 86.0 2.5 156 Second 64.5 0.0 356 90.8 0.0 200 73.2 0.0 210 Middle 55.6 0.0 529 80.2 0.0 214 81.0 0.3 178 Fourth 61.6 0.0 463 80.9 0.0 182 85.8 0.0 204 Richest 45.7 0.3 472 92.5 0.0 173 86.1 0.0 271 Ethnicity of household head   Serbian 57.3 0.1 1772 84.3 0.0 843 81.0 0.1 899 Hungarian 52.5 0.0 118 (*) (*) 39 (88.7) (0.0) 42 Bosnian (51.8) (0.0) 80 (*) (*) 14 (*) (*) 13 Roma 63.5 0.0 103 (95.2) (0.0) 38 (*) (*) 42 Other 52.9 0.0 87 (*) (*) 23 (*) (*) 19 Does not want to declare (*) (*) 23 (*) (*) 9 (*) (*) 5 Missing/DK (*) (*) 1 - - 0 - - 0 a Children age 15 or higher at the time of the interview whose mothers were not living in the household na: not applicable ( ) Figures that are based on 25-49 unweighted cases  (*) Figures that are based on less than 25 unweighted cases  “-” denotes 0 unweighted cases in that cell  204 Serbia Multiple Indicator Cluster Survey 2014 and Serbia Roma Settlements Multiple Indicator Cluster Survey 2014 Table CP.4 combines the children working and performing household chores at or above and below the age-specific thresholds as detailed in the previous tables, as well as those children reported working under hazardous conditions, into the total child labour indicator. Table CP.4: Child labour Percentage of children age 5-17 years by involvement in economic activities or household chores during the last week, percentage working under hazardous conditions during the last week, and percentage engaged in child labour during the last week, Serbia, 2014   Children involved in economic activities for a total number of hours during last week: Children involved in household chores for a total number of hours during last week: Below the age specific threshold At or above the age specific threshold Below the age specific threshold At or above the age specific threshold Total 11.5 6.7 69.8 0.1 Sex Male 16.3 7.6 68.1 0.0 Female 6.5 5.8 71.5 0.3 Region Belgrade 12.2 3.3 65.7 0.0 Vojvodina 8.3 6.8 71.7 0.3 Sumadija and Western Serbia 11.1 9.4 68.7 0.0 Southern and Eastern Serbia 15.4 6.1 72.2 0.2 Area Urban 7.7 3.5 70.0 0.1 Other 17.0 11.3 69.5 0.2 Age 5-11 1.0 12.0 56.8 0.1 12-14 20.1 1.9 85.7 0.0 15-17 26.0 0.0 82.4 0.4 School attendance Yes 11.8 6.7 71.8 0.1 No 6.3 6.8 33.4 1.7 Mother’s education None (3.1) (2.2) (90.1) (0.0) Primary 14.7 11.3 74.7 0.7 Secondary 12.7 7.3 69.0 0.1 Higher 4.0 2.7 67.4 0.0 Cannot be determineda 30.7 4.3 72.7 0.4 Wealth index quintile Poorest 13.1 8.4 72.2 0.5 Second 16.9 8.3 73.8 0.0 Middle 12.4 9.4 66.2 0.1 Fourth 11.2 3.6 71.5 0.0 Richest 5.3 4.3 66.5 0.2 Ethnicity of household head Serbian 12.0 6.3 69.9 0.1 Hungarian 16.5 18.2 67.6 0.0 Bosnian 2.8 2.7 63.8 0.0 Roma 7.1 2.6 76.4 2.1 Other 7.5 9.7 67.6 0.0 Does not want to declare (*) (*) (*) (*) Missing/DK (*) (*) (*) (*) 1 MICS indicator 8.2 — Child labour a Children age 15 or higher at the time of the interview whose mothers were not living in the household ( ) 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 205 7 percent of children age 5-17 years are involved in economic activities for the number of hours that classify their work as child labour. The percentage of children involved in economic activities above the age specific threshold is higher in other areas (11 percent), in the Sumadija and Western Serbia region (9 percent) and among the youngest age group of children 5-11 years old (12 percent). Overall, 3 percent of children work under hazardous conditions; 6 percent of boys and children from other areas, 8 percent of children 15-17 years old and those from the poorest households. Children working under hazardous conditions Total child labour 1 Number of children age 5-17 years 3.4 9.5 4168   5.9 12.2 2134 0.7 6.6 2034   3.7 6.2 814 2.5 8.5 1165 2.9 11.7 1213 4.8 10.6 977   1.9 4.8 2448 5.5 16.2 1720   0.8 12.0 2183 4.9 5.8 965 7.5 7.5 1020   3.3 9.5 3741 4.8 9.9 427   (0.0) (2.2) 42 7.8 17.2 587 2.5 9.2 2494 2.0 4.7 911 11.1 15.9 135   7.7 14.6 715 3.2 10.2 766 3.5 12.3 922 3.4 7.0 849 0.0 4.4 916   3.5 9.4 3513 0.9 18.6 199 0.0 2.7 107 5.7 6.2 184 3.8 9.7 129 (*) (*) 36 (*) (*) 1 In total, 10 percent of children are involved in child labour. Boys are more likely to be involved in child labour than girls (12 percent compared to 7 percent). There is also a difference by area, whereby 16 percent of children from other areas are involved in child labour, compared to 5 percent of children from urban areas. The percentage of children involved in child labour is higher among children whose mothers have primary education (17 percent) and children from the poorest quintile (15 percent). 206 Serbia Multiple Indicator Cluster Survey 2014 and Serbia Roma Settlements Multiple Indicator Cluster Survey 2014206 Serbia Multiple Indicator Cluster Survey 2014 and Serbia Roma Settlements Multiple Indicator Cluster Survey 2014 Child Labour in Roma Settlements Table CP.2R presents the results of children’s involvement in economic activities in Roma Settlements. Among children age 5-11 years, 4 percent are involved in an economic activity for at least one hour. There are some differences for children age 5-11 years within categories of sex and area, as boys and children from other areas are more likely to be involved in an economic activity. There is 4 percent of children age 12-14 years who are involved in an economic activity for less than 14 hours and 10 percent of children age 15-17 years involved in an economic activity for less than 43 hours. Less than 1 percent of children age 12-14 years and age 15-17 years is involved in economic activities to the extent that would classify their engagement as child labour. Table CP.2R: Children’s involvement in economic activities Percentage of children by involvement in economic activities during the last week, according to age groups, Serbia Roma Settlements, 2014   Percentage of children age 5-11 years involved in economic activity for at least one hour Number of children age 5-11 years Percentage of children age 12-14 years involved in: Number of children age 12-14 years Percentage of children age 15-17 years involved in: Number of children age 15-17 years Economic activity less than 14 hours Economic activity for 14 hours or more Economic activity less than 43 hours Economic activity for 43 hours or more Total 4.1 1496 3.5 0.6 587 10.3 0.5 552 Sex   Male 8.5 590 4.9 1.1 288 15.4 0.9 334 Female 1.3 906 2.1 0.0 299 2.5 0.0 218 Area   Urban 2.0 1139 2.5 0.2 468 10.3 0.0 411 Other 10.9 356 7.2 2.2 119 10.4 2.1 142 School attendance   Yes 2.9 1090 4.0 0.5 503 11.5 0.0 214 No 7.4 405 0.7 0.9 83 9.6 0.9 339 Mother’s education   None 4.7 453 0.0 0.0 128 25.2 0.0 126 Primary 3.4 929 4.0 0.8 412 5.1 0.9 316 Secondary or higher 6.0 110 (*) (*) 39 (*) (*) 18 Cannot be determineda na na na na na 9.2 0.0 93 Wealth index quintile   Poorest 9.9 369 1.1 0.7 97 11.1 0.0 121 Second 4.3 358 4.5 0.6 113 5.6 0.0 111 Middle 2.3 286 3.2 0.0 129 14.1 1.9 122 Fourth 0.4 253 4.7 1.8 102 10.8 0.0 136 Richest 0.7 230 3.7 0.0 146 8.6 1.0 63 Wealth index   Poorest 60 percent 5.8 1013 3.0 0.4 339 10.4 0.6 354 Richest 40 percent 0.6 483 4.1 0.8 247 10.1 0.3 199 a Children age 15 or higher at the time of the interview whose mothers were not living in the household na: not applicable (*) Figures that are based on less than 25 unweighted cases Table CP.3R presents the percentage of children age 5-17 years involved in household chores. Among children age 5-11 years, 53 percent are involved in household chores for less than 28 hours and there are no children who are involved in Monitoring the situation of children and women 207Monitoring the situation of children and women 207 household chores to the extent that would classify their engagement as child labour. For children age 12-14 years, 82 percent are involved less than 28 hours while 2 percent are involved in household chores for 28 hours or more, which is classified as child labour. 83 percent of children age 15-17 years are involved in household chores for less than 43 hours and 1 percent is involved for 43 hours or more. Table CP.3R: Children’s involvement in household chores Percentage of children by involvement in household chores during the last week, according to age groups, Serbia Roma Settlements, 2014   Percentage of children age 5-11 years involved in: Number of children age 5-11 years Percentage of children age 12-14 years involved in: Number of children age 12-14 years Percentage of children age 15-17 years involved in: Number of children age 15-17 years Household chores less than 28 hours Household chores for 28 hours or more Household chores less than 28 hours Household chores for 28 hours or more Household chores less than 43 hours Household chores for 43 hours or more Total 52.7 0.0 1496 81.9 1.5 587 82.9 1.0 552 Sex   Male 47.3 0.0 590 80.7 1.4 288 78.4 0.0 334 Female 56.1 0.0 906 83.0 1.5 299 89.8 2.4 218 Area   Urban 51.8 0.0 1139 81.7 1.8 468 84.4 1.1 411 Other 55.5 0.0 356 82.5 0.0 119 78.6 0.7 142 School attendance   Yes 55.6 0.0 1090 83.8 1.7 503 82.2 0.0 214 No 44.7 0.0 405 70.3 0.0 83 83.3 1.6 339 Mother’s education   None 52.1 0.0 453 82.7 1.4 128 88.1 0.0 126 Primary 49.8 0.0 929 80.5 1.6 412 80.9 0.7 316 Secondary or higher 77.7 0.0 110 (*) (*) 39 (*) (*) 18 Cannot be determineda na na na na na na 81.9 3.5 93 Wealth index quintile   Poorest 55.6 0.0 369 64.4 1.8 97 80.7 2.0 121 Second 60.7 0.0 358 88.1 0.0 113 78.0 0.0 111 Middle 41.9 0.0 286 96.8 0.0 129 88.4 1.8 122 Fourth 45.9 0.0 253 80.8 2.2 102 93.9 0.0 136 Richest 56.2 0.0 230 76.1 3.1 146 61.2 1.2 63 Wealth index   Poorest 60 percent 53.5 0.0 1013 84.7 0.5 339 82.5 1.3 354 Richest 40 percent 50.8 0.0 482.5 78.0 2.7 247 83.6 0.4 199 a Children age 15 or higher at the time of the interview whose mothers were not living in the household na: not applicable (*) Figures that are based on less than 25 unweighted cases  Table CP.4R presents the results of overall involvement in child labour and shows that 5 percent of children age 5-17 years are, by the definition of child labour for a specific age group, involved in child labour. Overall, boys are more likely to be involved in child labour than girls (8 percent compared to 2 percent). There is also a difference when comparing urban and other areas, whereby 9 percent of children from other areas are involved in child labour, compared to 4 percent from urban areas. Child labour is more prevalent among children from the poorest wealth quintile (9 percent) compared to other quintiles where prevalence ranges from 2 percent to 5 percent. 3 percent of children are involved in economic activities for the number of hours that classify their work as child labour. The percentage of children involved in economic activities above the age specific threshold is slightly higher among boys (5 percent), in other areas (7 percent), and among the children from the poorest households (6 percent). 208 Serbia Multiple Indicator Cluster Survey 2014 and Serbia Roma Settlements Multiple Indicator Cluster Survey 2014208 Serbia Multiple Indicator Cluster Survey 2014 and Serbia Roma Settlements Multiple Indicator Cluster Survey 2014 Overall, 4 percent of children work under hazardous conditions; 7 percent of boys and children from other areas, 8 percent of children age 15-17 years and those living in the poorest households. Table CP.4R: Child labour Percentage of children age 5-17 years by involvement in economic activities or household chores during the last week, percentage working under hazardous conditions during the last week, and percentage engaged in child labour during the last week, Serbia Roma Settlements, 2014   Children involved in economic activities for a total number of hours during last week: Children involved in household chores for a total number of hours during last week: Children working under hazardous conditions Total child labour1 Number of children age 5-17 yearsBelow the age specific threshold At or above the age specific threshold Below the age specific threshold At or above the age specific threshold Total 3.1 2.6 65.5 0.5 3.6 4.7 2634 Sex   Male 5.4 4.6 63.8 0.3 6.9 8.3 1212 Female 1.2 0.8 66.9 0.7 0.7 1.7 1423 Age   5-11 0.3 4.1 52.7 0.0 3.0 4.1 1496 12-14 3.5 0.6 81.9 1.5 1.1 2.6 587 15-17 10.3 0.5 82.9 1.0 7.7 8.7 552 Area   Urban 2.9 1.1 65.3 0.6 2.6 3.5 2018 Other 3.8 7.2 66.0 0.2 6.9 8.7 617 School attendance   Yes 2.5 1.9 66.6 0.5 2.0 3.3 1808 No 4.6 4.1 63.1 0.6 7.1 7.9 827 Mother’s education   None 4.5 3.0 64.1 0.3 6.6 7.2 707 Primary 2.3 2.3 63.3 0.5 2.2 3.2 1656 Secondary or higher 2.8 3.9 81.6 0.0 1.7 5.6 167 Cannot be determineda 8.3 1.6 83.7 3.1 7.6 10.7 104 Wealth index quintile   Poorest 2.5 6.4 62.2 0.7 8.1 9.3 587 Second 1.9 2.8 69.3 0.0 1.9 3.4 582 Middle 4.0 1.7 65.7 0.4 4.4 5.2 537 Fourth 5.0 0.6 66.4 0.5 1.3 1.9 490 Richest 2.5 0.5 63.5 1.2 1.4 3.0 438 Wealth index   Poorest 60 percent 2.8 3.7 65.7 0.4 4.8 6.0 1706 Richest 40 percent 3.8 0.6 65.1 0.8 1.3 2.4 928 1 MICS indicator 8.2 — Child labour a Children age 15 or higher at the time of the interview whose mothers were not living in the household Monitoring the situation of children and women 209 Child Discipline Teaching children self-control and acceptable behaviour is an integral part of child discipline in all cultures. Positive parenting practices involve providing guidance on how to handle emotions or conflicts in manners that encourage judgment and responsibility and preserve children’s self-esteem, physical and psychological integrity and dignity. Too often however, children are raised through the use of punitive methods that rely on the use of physical force or verbal intimidation to obtain desired behaviours. Table CP.5: Child discipline Percentage of children age 1-14 years by child disciplining methods experienced during the last one month, Serbia, 2014   Percentage of children age 1-14 years who experienced: Number of children age 1-14 yearsOnly non-violent discipline Psychological aggression Physical punishment Any violent discipline method1Any Severe Total 49.3 39.1 16.7 1.0 43.1 4313 Sex   Male 49.4 40.3 17.8 0.6 44.4 2136 Female 49.3 37.9 15.6 1.4 41.8 2178 Region   Belgrade 53.7 34.5 15.5 0.5 40.0 930 Vojvodina 45.5 43.9 15.1 1.2 47.1 1196 Sumadija and Western Serbia 49.6 37.7 17.1 1.9 40.7 1230 Southern and Eastern Serbia 49.6 39.2 19.1 0.1 44.2 957 Area   Urban 49.1 41.4 18.0 1.1 45.7 2585 Other 49.8 35.6 14.7 0.8 39.2 1729 Age   1-2 43.8 37.3 25.0 0.0 46.1 511 1 44.0 27.2 21.0 0.0 37.8 243 2 43.6 46.4 28.7 0.0 53.6 268 3-4 49.0 41.9 26.8 0.9 48.7 653 5-9 48.0 38.9 18.2 0.9 43.6 1655 10-14 52.9 38.6 7.6 1.5 39.0 1494 Education of household head   None 50.4 38.1 23.6 1.8 39.8 100 Primary 44.1 46.4 21.0 1.6 50.2 941 Secondary 49.2 37.3 15.7 1.0 41.6 2378 Higher 55.7 35.2 12.6 0.3 39.1 876 Missing/DK (*) (*) (*) (*) (*) 19 Wealth index quintile   Poorest 38.6 43.7 20.1 2.3 47.6 738 Second 47.5 40.2 18.1 0.5 44.8 756 Middle 50.5 39.5 15.8 0.3 43.2 942 Fourth 53.8 37.0 14.9 0.1 41.0 911 Richest 53.6 36.1 15.4 2.0 40.2 966 Ethnicity of household head   Serbian 50.3 38.6 16.2 0.7 42.6 3610 Hungarian 42.0 44.3 12.5 3.6 46.3 188 Bosnian 55.0 12.2 8.7 0.0 13.0 125 Roma 44.6 51.3 27.8 4.1 54.2 180 Other 31.6 53.2 28.0 1.1 64.2 161 Does not want to declare (67.7) (30.0) (12.1) (0.0) (31.3) 49 Missing/DK (*) (*) (*) (*) (*) 1 1 MICS indicator 8.3 — Violent discipline ( ) Figures that are based on 25-49 unweighted cases  (*) Figures that are based on less than 25 unweighted cases 210 Serbia Multiple Indicator Cluster Survey 2014 and Serbia Roma Settlements Multiple Indicator Cluster Survey 2014 Studies79 have found that exposing children to violent discipline have harmful consequences, which range from immediate impacts to long-term harm that children carry forward into adult life. Violence hampers children’s development, learning abilities and school performance; it inhibits positive relationships, provokes low self-esteem, emotional distress and depression; and, at times, it leads to risk taking and self-harm. In the MICS, respondents to the household questionnaire were asked a series of questions on the methods adults in the household used to discipline a selected child during the past month74 and the findings are presented in Table CP.5. In the 2014 Serbia MICS, 43 percent of children age 1-14 years were subjected to at least one form of psychological or physical punishment by household members during the past month. For the most part, households employ a combination of violent disciplinary practices, reflecting caregivers’ motivation to control children’s behaviour by any means possible. While 39 percent of children experienced psychological aggression, about 17 percent experienced physical punishment (Figure CP.1). The most severe forms of physical punishment (hitting the child on the head, ears or face or hitting the child hard and repeatedly) are overall less common: 1 percent of children were subjected to severe punishment. Differentials with respect to background characteristics are relatively small. The most notable difference in physical punishment is with respect to the education of a head of household. A higher percentage of children from households where the head has no education experienced physical disciplining (24 percent) while this was the case for 13 percent of children in households where the head of household has higher education. Younger children were more exposed to any physical disciplining than older children: 25 percent of children age 1-2 years were physically punished while this was the case for 8 percent of children age 10-14 years. Figure CP.1: Child disciplining methods, children age 1-14 years, Serbia, 2014 While violent methods are common forms of discipline, Table CP.6 reveals that only 7 percent of respondents to the household questionnaires believe that physical punishment is a necessary part of child-rearing, which implies an interesting contrast with the actual prevalence of physical discipline. There are differentials across background characteristics of respondents. Respondents from Vojvodina are more likely to find physical punishment necessary in disciplining children (12 percent) compared to other regions. The respondents’ age is negatively associated with the likelihood of finding physical punishment a necessary method of disciplining children, with the percentage of respondents who believe in the necessity of physical punishment ranging from 13 percent for those under age 25 years to 3 percent for those age 60 and above. 79 Straus, M. A., and M. J. Paschall, Corporal Punishment by Mothers and Development of Children’s Cognitive Ability: A longitudinal study of two nationally representative age cohorts, Journal of Aggression, Maltreatment & Trauma, vol. 18, no. 5, 2009, pp. 459-483; Erickson, M. F., and B. Egeland, A Developmental View of the Psychological Consequences of Maltreatment, School Psychology Review, vol. 16, 1987, pp. 156-168; Schneider, M. W., A. Ross, J. C. Graham and A. Zielinski, Do Allegations of Emotional Maltreatment Predict Developmental Outcomes Beyond that of Other Forms of Maltreatment?, Child Abuse & Neglect, vol. 29, no. 5, 2005, pp. 513-532. 49 43 39 Other 16 Severe 1 Only non-violent discipline Any violent discipline Psychological aggression Physical punishment Percent Monitoring the situation of children and women 211 Table CP.6: Attitudes toward physical punishment Percentage of respondents to the child discipline module who believe that physical punishment is needed to bring up, raise, or educate a child properly, Serbia, 2014   Respondent believes that a child needs to be physically punished Number of respondents to the child discipline module Total 6.7 1558 Sex   Male 7.3 485 Female 6.4 1073 Region   Belgrade 3.2 353 Vojvodina 11.8 431 Sumadija and Western Serbia 6.8 428 Southern and Eastern Serbia 3.8 346 Area   Urban 8.0 956 Other 4.5 602 Age   <25 12.9 59 25-39 7.8 762 40-59 5.8 567 60+ 2.5 171 Respondent’s relationship to selected child   Mother 7.1 824 Father 8.0 361 Other 4.5 373 Respondent’s education   None (*) 14 Primary 7.9 252 Secondary 6.8 897 Higher 5.1 395 Wealth index quintile   Poorest 8.0 229 Second 5.7 265 Middle 7.1 355 Fourth 6.0 334 Richest 6.8 376 Ethnicity of household head   Serbian 6.0 1331 Hungarian 11.8 68 Bosnian 3.2 31 Roma 9.8 45 Other 15.9 60 Does not want to declare (*) 23 Missing/DK (*) 0 (*) Figures that are based on less than 25 unweighted cases 212 Serbia Multiple Indicator Cluster Survey 2014 and Serbia Roma Settlements Multiple Indicator Cluster Survey 2014212 Serbia Multiple Indicator Cluster Survey 2014 and Serbia Roma Settlements Multiple Indicator Cluster Survey 2014 Child Discipline in Roma Settlements In the 2014 Serbia Roma Settlements MICS, 66 percent of children age 1-14 years were subjected to at least one form of psychological or physical punishment by household members during the past month (Table CP.5R). While 63 percent of children experienced psychological aggression, about 35 percent experienced physical punishment. The most severe forms of physical punishment (hitting the child on the head, ears or face or hitting the child hard and repeatedly) are overall less common: 8 percent of children were subjected to severe punishment (Figure CP.1R). Physical punishment is most prevalent among children age 3-4 years, whereby 14 percent of children this age were subjected to severe physical punishment, and 47 percent were subjected to any physical punishment. Table CP.5R: Child discipline Percentage of children age 1-14 years by child disciplining methods experienced during the last one month, Serbia Roma Settlements, 2014   Percentage of children age 1-14 years who experienced: Number of children age 1-14 years Only non-violent discipline Psychological aggression Physical punishment Any violent discipline method1Any Severe Total 26.3 63.3 34.5 7.8 65.9 3070 Sex   Male 25.0 65.8 36.3 6.8 67.8 1389 Female 27.3 61.2 33.0 8.6 64.3 1681 Area   Urban 24.8 65.6 34.1 8.1 68.2 2344 Other 31.2 55.8 35.9 6.8 58.5 726 Age   1-2 31.6 49.3 30.5 4.0 53.6 473 1 33.0 35.9 26.8 3.2 42.4 215 2 30.4 60.4 33.6 4.7 62.8 259 3-4 26.3 66.4 47.1 14.3 69.0 515 5-9 22.5 66.4 39.6 9.9 68.8 1155 10-14 28.2 64.8 23.2 3.5 66.7 927 Education of household head   None 30.7 58.0 35.2 5.4 60.0 545 Primary 25.2 64.0 33.5 8.3 66.9 2190 Secondary or higher 26.0 66.9 40.2 8.1 68.2 333 Missing/DK (*) (*) (*) (*) (*) 2 Wealth index quintile   Poorest 25.4 61.1 42.2 14.8 65.8 783 Second 25.5 60.8 33.4 6.0 62.7 655 Middle 26.2 67.4 25.5 4.8 69.0 575 Fourth 26.0 66.3 31.9 2.8 68.3 545 Richest 29.0 61.9 37.0 8.1 63.9 513 Wealth index   Poorest 60 percent 25.7 62.8 34.6 9.1 65.7 2013 Richest 40 percent 27.4 64.2 34.4 5.3 66.2 1058 1 MICS indicator 8.3 — Violent discipline (*) Figures that are based on less than 25 unweighted cases  Monitoring the situation of children and women 213Monitoring the situation of children and women 213 Figure CP.1R: Child disciplining methods, children age 1-14 years, Serbia Roma Settlements, 2014 While violent methods are common forms of discipline, Table CP.6R reveals that only 11 percent of respondents to the household questionnaires believe that physical punishment is a necessary part of child-rearing, which implies an interesting contrast with the actual prevalence of physical discipline. There are differentials across background characteristics of respondents. Overall, respondents with secondary or higher education and those from the richest wealth quintile are less likely to find physical punishment a necessary method of disciplining children. Table CP.6R: Attitudes toward physical punishment Percentage of respondents to the child discipline module who believe that physical punishment is needed to bring up, raise, or educate a child properly, Serbia Roma Settlements, 2014   Respondent believes that a child needs to be physically punished Number of respondents to the child discipline module Total 11.0 990 Sex   Male 10.0 423 Female 11.7 567 Area   Urban 10.7 735 Other 11.8 255 Age   <25 13.1 155 25-39 12.5 466 40-59 8.6 304 60+ 6.1 65 Respondent’s relationship to selected child   Mother 11.3 415 Father 10.9 266 Other 10.5 309 Respondent’s education   None 14.2 162 Primary 11.3 708 Secondary or higher 4.6 120 Wealth index quintile   Poorest 13.2 221 Second 11.9 198 Middle 11.2 180 Fourth 11.0 184 Richest 7.3 207 Wealth index   Poorest 60 percent 12.2 599 Richest 40 percent 9.0 391 26 66 63 Other 27 Severe 8 Only non-violent discipline Any violent discipline Psychological aggression Physical punishment Percent 214 Serbia Multiple Indicator Cluster Survey 2014 and Serbia Roma Settlements Multiple Indicator Cluster Survey 2014 Early Marriage Marriage before the age of 18 is a reality for many young girls. In many parts of the world parents encourage the marriage of their daughters while they are still children in hopes that the marriage will benefit them both financially and socially, while also relieving financial burdens on the family. In actual fact, child marriage is a violation of human rights, compromising the development of girls and often resulting in early pregnancy and social isolation, with little education and poor vocational training reinforcing the gendered nature of poverty. The right to ‘free and full’ consent to a marriage is recognized in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights — with the recognition that consent cannot be ‘free and full’ when one of the parties involved is not sufficiently mature to make an informed decision about a life partner. Closely related to the issue of child marriage is the age at which girls become sexually active. Women who are married before the age of 18 tend to have more children than those who marry later in life. Pregnancy related deaths are known to be a leading cause of mortality for both married and unmarried girls between the ages of 15 and 19, particularly among the youngest of this cohort. In Serbia, according to the Family Law, marriage is not allowed before the age of 18. However, under special circumstances, marriage is allowed at the age of 1680. The percentage of women married before 15 and 18 years are provided in Table CP.7. About 4 percent of young women age 15-19 years are currently married or in union. This proportion does not vary much between urban (4 percent) and other areas (3 percent) but there are some differences by socioeconomic status, with the percent of young women age 15-19 years who are currently married or in union ranging from zero to 9 percent. Among women age 20-49 years, 7 percent were married before the age of 18 and there is a difference between urban and other areas (5 percent in urban and 10 percent in other areas). Women age 20-49 years living in the Belgrade region are less likely to get married before age 18, compared to the other three regions. The difference is also notable regarding the education of women with 35 percent of those with primary education and less than one percent with higher education married before the age of 18. 80 According to the Family Law in Serbia, the Court may, for justified reasons, allow the marriage of a minor who has reached 16 years of age and who has reached the physical and mental maturity necessary to exercise the rights and duties of marriage. Monitoring the situation of children and women 215 Table CP.7: Early marriage 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, and the percentage of women age 15-19 years currently married or in union, Serbia, 2014   Women age 15-49 years Women age 20-49 years Women age 15-19 years 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 currently married/in union3 Number of women age 15-19 years Total 0.8 4713 0.8 6.8 4198 3.5 515 Region   Belgrade 0.6 1105 0.7 2.8 1012 0.3 93 Vojvodina 1.4 1238 1.4 7.2 1106 5.4 132 Sumadija and Western Serbia 0.4 1293 0.4 7.8 1150 1.4 143 Southern and Eastern Serbia 0.6 1077 0.7 9.4 931 6.0 146 Area   Urban 0.4 2870 0.5 4.7 2569 3.2 301 Other 1.3 1843 1.4 10.1 1629 4.0 214 Age   15-19 0.3 515 na na na 3.5 515 20-24 0.3 562 0.3 3.2 562 na na 25-29 0.2 667 0.2 4.1 667 na na 30-34 1.4 704 1.4 8.8 704 na na 35-39 1.3 758 1.3 8.2 758 na na 40-44 0.8 745 0.8 6.1 745 na na 45-49 0.8 763 0.8 9.2 763 na na Education   None (18.0) 20 (18.3) (41.5) 20 0.0 0 Primary 5.3 473 5.3 34.7 451 (30.5) 22 Secondary 0.2 2604 0.2 5.3 2161 2.6 442 Higher 0.2 1616 0.2 0.3 1566 (0.0) 50 Wealth index quintile   Poorest 3.2 600 3.4 19.0 542 8.9 58 Second 0.6 954 0.7 7.5 818 5.4 136 Middle 0.2 1025 0.2 6.0 921 0.8 104 Fourth 0.3 1035 0.3 3.4 937 4.6 98 Richest 0.5 1099 0.5 3.5 980 0.2 119 Ethnicity of household head   Serbian 0.5 4131 0.6 5.9 3681 2.6 450 Hungarian 0.0 172 0.0 10.1 144 (*) 27 Bosnian 0.0 80 0.0 4.6 73 (*) 7 Roma 13.5 102 14.8 36.6 89 (*) 14 Other 0.3 170 0.3 9.4 157 (*) 13 Does not want to declare (0.0) 54 (0.0) (2.6) 51 (*) 3 Missing/DK (*) 4 (*) (*) 3 (*) 1 1 MICS indicator 8.4 — Marriage before age 15 2 MICS indicator 8.5 — Marriage before age 18 3 MICS indicator 8.6 — Young women age 15-19 years currently married or in union na: not applicable ( ) Figures that are based on 25-49 unweighted cases  (*) Figures that are based on less than 25 unweighted cases Table CP.8 presents the proportion of women who were first married or entered into a marital union before age 15 and 18 by area and age groups. Examining the percentages married before age 15 and 18 by different age groups allow for trends 216 Serbia Multiple Indicator Cluster Survey 2014 and Serbia Roma Settlements Multiple Indicator Cluster Survey 2014 to be observed in early marriage over time. There is an overall decline over time in the proportion of women married or in union by age 18: 9 percent of women age 45-49 years were first married/in union by age 18 compared to 3 percent of women age 20-24 years (Figure CP.2). Table CP.8: Trends in early marriage Percentage of women who were first married or entered into a marital union before age 15 and 18, by area and age groups, Serbia, 2014   Urban Other All Percentage of women married before age 15 Number of women age 15-49 years Percentage of women married before age 18 Number of women age 20-49 years Percentage of women married before age 15 Number of women age 15-49 years Percentage of women married before age 18 Number of women age 20-49 years Percentage of women married before age 15 Number of women age 15-49 years Percentage of women married before age 18 Number of women age 20-49 years Total 0.4 2870 4.7 2569 1.3 1843 10.1 1629 0.8 4713 6.8 4198 Age  15-19 0.1 301 na na 0.5 214 na na 0.3 515 na na 20-24 0.2 353 3.4 353 0.5 209 3.0 209 0.3 562 3.2 562 25-29 0.1 407 1.0 407 0.2 260 9.0 260 0.2 667 4.1 667 30-34 0.6 455 5.9 455 2.9 249 14.1 249 1.4 704 8.8 704 35-39 0.3 458 6.3 458 2.7 299 11.2 299 1.3 758 8.2 758 40-44 0.7 466 4.0 466 0.8 279 9.5 279 0.8 745 6.1 745 45-49 0.7 430 7.2 430 0.9 333 11.8 333 0.8 763 9.2 763 na: not applicable Figure CP.2: Early marriage among women, Serbia, 2014 Another component is the spousal age difference with an indicator being the percentage of married/in union women 10 or more years younger than their current spouse. Table CP.9 presents the results of the age difference between husbands and wives. The results show that there are some spousal age differences in the 2014 Serbia MICS. Among currently married women age 20-24 years, one in ten are married to a man who is older by ten years or more (10 percent). The indicator of spousal age difference among women age 15-19 is 9 percent (MICS indicator 8.8a), but this figure should be treated with caution because it is based on 25-49 unweighted cases. Data for women age 15-19 years are not presented in the table because the data across background characteristics are mostly based on less than 25 unweighted cases. 00 0 00 1 1 1 1 3 4 9 8 6 9 15-19 20-24 25-29 30-34 35-39 40-44 45-49 Age Percentage married before age 15 Percentage married before age 18 na na: not applicable Monitoring the situation of children and women 217 Table CP.9: Spousal age differencea 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, Serbia, 2014 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 unionYounger 0-4 years older 5-9 years older 10+ years older1 Husband/ Partner’s age unknown Total Total 4.2 54.5 30.0 10.3 1.0 100.0 105 Region   Belgrade (3.6) (43.8) (33.0) (15.9) (3.7) 100.0 20 Vojvodina 3.9 73.5 21.9 0.6 0.0 100.0 29 Sumadija and Western Serbia 7.4 46.4 32.6 12.9 0.8 100.0 35 Southern and Eastern Serbia 0.0 51.7 34.2 14.2 0.0 100.0 21 Area   Urban 3.9 62.3 24.5 8.0 1.3 100.0 58 Other 4.6 44.7 36.9 13.2 0.6 100.0 47 Age   15-19 na na na na na na na 20-24 4.2 54.5 30.0 10.3 1.0 100.0 105 Education   None (*) (*) (*) (*) (*) 100.0 4 Primary (1.4) (40.8) (36.4) (21.5) (0.0) 100.0 20 Secondary 5.0 58.7 27.9 6.7 1.8 100.0 57 Higher (2.9) (50.8) (34.8) (11.6) (0.0) 100.0 24 Wealth index quintile   Poorest 4.1 52.8 25.6 17.5 0.0 100.0 29 Second 0.8 48.8 42.6 6.6 1.1 100.0 25 Middle 4.0 67.4 25.9 2.7 0.0 100.0 25 Fourth (4.2) (51.2) (42.4) (2.2) (0.0) 100.0 12 Richest (11.0) (47.4) (14.3) (22.0) (5.2) 100.0 14 1 MICS indicator 8.8b — Spousal age difference (among women age 20-24) a Data for women age 15-19 years are not presented in the table (including MICS indicator 8.8a Spousal age difference (among women age 15-19)) because the data across background characteristics are mostly based on less than 25 unweighted cases. na: not applicable ( ) Figures that are based on 25-49 unweighted cases  (*) Figures that are based on less than 25 unweighted cases  218 Serbia Multiple Indicator Cluster Survey 2014 and Serbia Roma Settlements Multiple Indicator Cluster Survey 2014218 Serbia Multiple Indicator Cluster Survey 2014 and Serbia Roma Settlements Multiple Indicator Cluster Survey 2014 Early Marriage in Roma Settlements Every two in five young women age 15-19 years in Roma settlements (43 percent) are currently married or in union. This proportion is related to the level of education as there are 52 percent of women this age currently married among those with primary education and 11 percent among those with secondary or higher education. 17 percent of women age 15-49 were married before age 15. The percentage of women age 15-49 who married before age 15 is much higher among women with no education (26 percent) compared to women who have secondary or higher education (4 percent). 57 percent of women age 20-49 were married before the age of 18 years with a similar pattern of disparity by education level. Table CP.7R: Early marriage 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, and the percentage of women age 15-19 years currently married or in union, Serbia Roma Settlements, 2014   Women age 15-49 years Women age 20-49 years Women age 15-19 years 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 currently married/in union3 Number of women age 15-19 years Total 16.9 2081 17.3 57.0 1699 42.7 382 Area   Urban 16.5 1544 16.4 57.6 1258 42.2 286 Other 18.2 537 19.8 55.4 441 44.1 96 Age   15-19 15.2 382 na na na 42.7 382 20-24 14.4 377 14.4 56.7 377 na na 25-29 20.1 284 20.1 56.4 284 na na 30-34 14.8 288 14.8 56.2 288 na na 35-39 18.2 267 18.2 59.5 267 na na 40-44 18.7 254 18.7 61.5 254 na na 45-49 19.2 229 19.2 51.5 229 na na Education   None 25.7 436 26.6 58.6 405 (40.5) 31 Primary 16.6 1381 15.9 62.1 1109 52.2 272 Secondary or higher 3.7 263 5.1 22.9 184 10.7 79 Missing/DK (*) 1 (*) (*) 1 - 0 Wealth index quintile   Poorest 22.7 397 22.2 59.8 310 51.8 88 Second 15.5 402 16.1 57.2 330 33.6 72 Middle 14.0 405 15.6 58.2 341 39.1 64 Fourth 17.4 413 17.1 54.8 352 46.0 61 Richest 15.3 464 16.0 55.6 367 41.5 97 Wealth index   Poorest 60 percent 17.4 1204 17.9 58.4 981 42.3 224 Richest 40 percent 16.3 877 16.6 55.2 718 43.3 158 1 MICS indicator 8.4 — Marriage before age 15 2 MICS indicator 8.5 — Marriage before age 18 3 MICS indicator 8.6 — Young women age 15-19 years currently married or in union na: not applicable ( ) Figures that are based on 25-49 unweighted cases  (*) Figures that are based on less than 25 unweighted cases  “-” denotes 0 unweighted cases in that cell Monitoring the situation of children and women 219Monitoring the situation of children and women 219 Table CP.8R presents the proportion of women who were first married or entered into a marital union before age 15 and 18 in Roma settlements by area and age groups. Data show that there are no clear trends over time in the overall prevalence of women married or in union by age 15 or age 18 (Figure CP.2R). Table CP.8R: Trends in early marriage Percentage of women who were first married or entered into a marital union before age 15 and 18, by area and age groups, Serbia Roma Settlements, 2014   Urban Other All Percentage of women married before age 15 Number of women age 15-49 years Percentage of women married before age 18 Number of women age 20-49 years Percentage of women married before age 15 Number of women age 15-49 years Percentage of women married before age 18 Number of women age 20-49 years Percentage of women married before age 15 Number of women age 15-49 years Percentage of women married before age 18 Number of women age 20-49 years Total 16.5 1544 57.6 1258 18.2 537 55.4 441 16.9 2081 57.0 1699 Age   15-19 16.6 286 na na 10.9 96 na na 15.2 382 na na 20-24 13.2 282 57.9 282 18.2 95 52.9 95 14.4 377 56.7 377 25-29 17.3 205 58.6 205 27.2 80 50.8 80 20.1 284 56.4 284 30-34 15.1 210 54.2 210 13.9 77 61.7 77 14.8 288 56.2 288 35-39 17.6 212 58.5 212 20.2 55 63.3 55 18.2 267 59.5 267 40-44 18.3 181 61.0 181 19.8 73 62.8 73 18.7 254 61.5 254 45-49 19.1 168 55.1 168 19.5 61 41.5 61 19.2 229 51.5 229 na: not applicable Figure CP.2R: Early marriage among women, Serbia Roma Settlements, 2014 Table CP.9R presents the results of the age difference between husbands and wives. The findings show that, among currently married women, 6 percent of those age 15-19 years and 3 percent of those age 20-24 years are married to a man who is older by ten years or more. Percentage married before age 15 Percentage married before age 18 15 14 na 20 15 18 19 19 57 56 56 60 61 51 15-19 20-24 25-29 30-34 35-39 40-44 45-49 na: not applicable 220 Serbia Multiple Indicator Cluster Survey 2014 and Serbia Roma Settlements Multiple Indicator Cluster Survey 2014220 Serbia Multiple Indicator Cluster Survey 2014 and Serbia Roma Settlements Multiple Indicator Cluster Survey 2014 Table CP.9R: Spousal age differencea 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, Serbia Roma Settlements, 2014   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 Total 13.5 66.3 14.0 6.3 100.0 146 11.8 68.0 17.6 2.6 100.0 275 Area   Urban 9.7 70.9 15.1 4.3 100.0 110 8.7 71.7 17.2 2.4 100.0 212 Other (25.1) (52.1) (10.5) (12.3) 100.0 36 22.1 55.5 19.2 3.3 100.0 64 Age   15-19 13.5 66.3 14.0 6.3 100.0 146 na na na na na na 20-24 na na na na na na 11.8 68.0 17.6 2.6 100.0 275 Education   None (*) (*) (*) (*) 100.0 13 8.8 70.6 17.7 2.8 100.0 54 Primary 11.8 68.7 13.5 6.0 100.0 125 12.4 66.5 18.2 2.9 100.0 195 Secondary or higher (*) (*) (*) (*) 100.0 8 (13.7) (73.0) (13.3) (0.0) 100.0 26 Wealth index quintile  Poorest (10.3) (71.0) (12.6) (6.2) 100.0 37 8.3 67.3 19.7 4.7 100.0 57 Second (24.9) (42.6) (20.8) (11.6) 100.0 22 16.7 63.9 14.9 4.5 100.0 50 Middle 38.2 50.5 5.9 5.4 100.0 21 17.5 65.0 14.4 3.1 100.0 56 Fourth (*) (*) (*) (*) 100.0 25 7.1 73.4 18.7 0.8 100.0 59 Richest (4.1) (79.8) (16.0) (0.0) 100.0 40 10.3 69.5 20.2 0.0 100.0 54 Wealth index  Poorest 60 percent 21.1 56.0 13.2 9.7 100.0 80 14.0 65.5 16.4 4.1 100.0 163 Richest 40 percent 4.2 78.9 14.9 2.1 100.0 66 8.6 71.5 19.4 0.4 100.0 113 1 MICS indicator 8.8a — Spousal age difference (among women age 15-19) 2 MICS indicator 8.8b — Spousal age difference (among women age 20-24) na: not applicable a The column “Husband/Partner’s age unknown” is not shown in the table because there were no recorded cases. ( ) 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 221 Attitudes toward Domestic Violence MICS assessed the attitudes of women age 15-49 years towards wife/partner beating by asking the respondents whether husbands/partners are justified to hit or beat their wives/partners in a variety of situations. The purpose of these questions are to capture the social justification of violence (in contexts where women have a lower status in society) as a disciplinary action when a woman does not comply with certain expected gender roles. Table CP.10: Attitudes toward domestic violence Percentage of women age 15-49 years who believe a husband is justified in beating his wife in various circumstances, Serbia, 2014   Percentage of women age 15-49 years who believe a husband is justified in beating his wife: Number of women age 15-49 years If she 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 five reasons1 Total 1.1 3.3 1.2 0.8 0.5 3.8 4713 Region   Belgrade 0.1 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.1 0.6 1105 Vojvodina 1.5 3.7 1.5 0.9 0.2 4.3 1238 Sumadija and Western Serbia 1.3 3.8 0.9 0.8 0.7 4.4 1293 Southern and Eastern Serbia 1.3 5.3 2.1 1.0 1.0 6.1 1077 Area   Urban 0.7 2.0 0.8 0.4 0.2 2.3 2870 Other 1.8 5.4 1.9 1.4 1.1 6.3 1843 Age   15-19 0.5 2.3 0.4 0.2 0.1 2.4 515 20-24 1.7 4.6 1.3 0.7 0.4 4.9 562 25-29 1.2 2.9 1.5 0.8 0.4 3.5 667 30-34 1.0 3.4 0.7 0.2 0.2 3.9 704 35-39 0.5 2.1 1.0 0.5 0.4 2.2 758 40-44 1.4 2.8 1.7 1.0 0.5 3.5 745 45-49 1.4 5.0 1.7 1.9 1.3 6.3 763 Marital/Union status   Currently married/in union 1.3 3.7 1.7 0.9 0.7 4.5 2846 Formerly married/in union 2.3 4.5 1.4 1.4 1.0 5.1 347 Never married/in union 0.5 2.3 0.3 0.4 0.1 2.4 1520 Education   None (25.1) (29.4) (15.5) (33.7) (5.5) (39.5) 20 Primary 6.9 13.5 7.1 4.7 3.4 16.2 473 Secondary 0.5 2.8 0.7 0.3 0.3 3.2 2604 Higher 0.0 0.7 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.8 1616 Wealth index quintile   Poorest 4.8 12.1 5.1 4.8 2.8 14.0 600 Second 1.9 4.6 1.6 0.6 0.7 5.6 954 Middle 0.3 2.0 0.7 0.1 0.0 2.3 1025 Fourth 0.1 1.2 0.0 0.1 0.0 1.3 1035 Richest 0.1 0.6 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.7 1099 Ethnicity of household head   Serbian 0.9 2.9 0.8 0.5 0.4 3.3 4131 Hungarian 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.2 172 Bosnian 4.7 10.5 0.7 0.0 0.3 10.5 80 Roma 6.3 18.1 12.5 11.5 6.2 23.5 102 Other 3.2 6.2 5.0 2.6 0.0 7.6 170 Does not want to declare (0.4) (0.0) (0.0) (0.0) (0.0) (0.4) 54 Missing/DK (*) (*) (*) (*) (*) (*) 4 1 MICS indicator 8.12 — Attitudes towards domestic violence ( ) Figures that are based on 25-49 unweighted cases  (*) Figures that are based on less than 25 unweighted cases 222 Serbia Multiple Indicator Cluster Survey 2014 and Serbia Roma Settlements Multiple Indicator Cluster Survey 2014 The responses to these questions can be found in Table CP.10. Overall, 4 percent of women in the 2014 Serbia MICS feel that a husband/partner is justified in hitting or beating his wife in at least one of the five situations. Women who justify a husband’s violence, in most cases agree and justify violence in instances when a wife neglects the children (3 percent), or if she demonstrates her autonomy, exemplified by going out without telling her husband (1 percent) or arguing with him (1 percent). Less than 1 percent of women believe that wife-beating is justified if the wife refuses to have sex with the husband or if she burns the food. Justification for any of the five reasons is more present among those living in the poorest households (14 percent) and among women with primary education (16 percent). Monitoring the situation of children and women 223Monitoring the situation of children and women 223 Attitudes toward Domestic Violence in Roma Settlements In Roma settlements, 37 percent of women feel that a husband/partner is justified in hitting or beating his wife in at least one of the five situations. Almost one in three women justify a husband’s violence when a wife neglects the children (30 percent) and one in five approves it if she demonstrates her autonomy, exemplified by going out without telling her husband (19 percent) or arguing with him (21 percent). 17 percent of women believe that wife-beating is justified if the wife refuses to have sex with the husband and 13 percent if she burns the food. Women who are currently married or in union are much more likely to agree with one of the five reasons (41 percent) than women who were formerly married and those who were never married (27 percent each). Table CP.10R: Attitudes toward domestic violence Percentage of women age 15-49 years who believe a husband is justified in beating his wife in various circumstances, Serbia Roma Settlements, 2014   Percentage of women age 15-49 years who believe a husband is justified in beating his wife: Number of women age 15-49 years If she 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 five reasons1 Total 19.4 30.3 21.3 16.9 12.5 37.0 2081 Area   Urban 20.2 29.8 21.4 17.5 12.7 37.0 1544 Other 17.0 31.6 21.1 15.2 12.0 37.1 537 Age   15-19 17.2 29.6 22.1 15.1 12.2 34.9 382 20-24 26.4 33.3 29.1 21.5 16.9 41.7 377 25-29 19.6 28.9 19.4 11.4 9.6 36.0 284 30-34 12.6 25.0 17.1 13.5 8.3 33.5 288 35-39 16.9 31.3 13.2 18.5 9.4 39.6 267 40-44 22.0 34.6 24.5 22.4 18.4 40.2 254 45-49 19.8 28.7 21.2 15.6 11.9 32.1 229 Marital/Union status   Currently married/in union 21.2 32.9 23.4 18.6 13.6 40.6 1533 Formerly married/in union 14.9 23.9 14.8 11.7 11.3 26.6 213 Never married/in union 14.0 22.3 16.2 12.4 8.6 27.4 335 Education   None 22.2 28.7 22.6 11.5 8.2 36.1 436 Primary 20.6 33.0 22.0 20.0 15.3 39.7 1381 Secondary or higher 8.6 18.2 15.5 9.5 5.2 24.3 263 Missing/DK (*) (*) (*) (*) (*) (*) 1 Wealth index quintile   Poorest 23.6 34.8 22.2 16.5 12.8 40.5 397 Second 21.4 25.9 18.8 15.5 9.7 33.8 402 Middle 17.7 33.1 25.9 13.3 11.8 42.6 405 Fourth 18.0 28.1 20.2 20.2 13.2 35.3 413 Richest 16.7 29.7 19.8 18.7 14.8 33.5 464 Wealth index   Poorest 60 percent 20.9 31.3 22.3 15.1 11.4 39.0 1204 Richest 40 percent 17.3 28.9 20.0 19.4 14.1 34.3 877 1 MICS indicator 8.12 — Attitudes towards domestic violence (*) Figures that are based on less than 25 unweighted cases 224 Serbia Multiple Indicator Cluster Survey 2014 and Serbia Roma Settlements Multiple Indicator Cluster Survey 2014 Children s´ Living Arrangements and Orphanhood The CRC recognizes that “the child, for the full and harmonious development of his or her personality, should grow up in a family environment, in an atmosphere of happiness, love and understanding”. Millions of children around the world grow up with without the care of their parents for several reasons, including due to the premature death of the parents or their migration for work. In most cases, these children are cared for by members of their extended families, while in others, children may be living in households other than their own, as live-in domestic workers for instance. Understanding the children’s living arrangements, including the composition of the households where they live and the relationships with their primary caregivers, is key to designing targeted interventions aimed at promoting the child’s care and wellbeing. Table CP.11: Children’s living arrangements and orphanhood Percent distribution of children age 0-17 years according to living arrangements, percentage of children age 0-17 years not living with a biological parent and percentage of children who have one or both parents dead, Serbia, 2014   Living with both parents Living with neither biological parent Living with mother only Living with father only Missing information on father/ mother Total Living with neither biological parent1 One or both parents dead 2 Number of children age 0-17 years Only father alive Only mother alive Both alive Both dead Father alive Father dead Mother alive Mother dead Total 86.3 0.1 0.0 0.6 0.0 7.4 1.0 2.5 0.7 1.5 100.0 0.7 1.7 3471 Sex   Male 86.1 0.1 0.0 0.4 0.0 7.1 1.1 2.9 0.7 1.7 100.0 0.5 1.8 1767 Female 86.5 0.1 0.0 0.8 0.0 7.7 0.9 2.1 0.7 1.3 100.0 0.8 1.6 1704 Region   Belgrade 83.8 0.0 0.0 0.6 0.0 8.7 1.5 2.3 0.6 2.4 100.0 0.6 2.1 747 Vojvodina 83.2 0.1 0.0 0.3 0.0 8.6 1.5 4.3 0.0 1.9 100.0 0.4 1.7 956 Sumadija and Western Serbia 88.9 0.1 0.0 0.6 0.0 5.8 0.3 1.6 1.2 1.5 100.0 0.7 1.7 982 Southern and Eastern Serbia 89.1 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 6.8 0.7 1.6 0.7 0.2 100.0 1.0 1.4 786 Area   Urban 84.4 0.0 0.0 0.6 0.0 8.5 1.1 3.2 0.7 1.4 100.0 0.6 1.8 2080 Other 89.1 0.2 0.0 0.6 0.0 5.7 0.8 1.4 0.6 1.7 100.0 0.8 1.5 1391 Age   0-4 92.0 0.0 0.0 0.5 0.0 5.2 0.3 1.0 0.0 0.9 100.0 0.5 0.3 897 0-2 93.8 0.0 0.0 0.3 0.0 3.7 0.4 1.2 0.1 0.6 100.0 0.3 0.4 504 3-4 89.7 0.0 0.0 0.8 0.0 7.1 0.1 0.9 0.0 1.3 100.0 0.8 0.1 393 5-9 86.2 0.0 0.0 0.5 0.0 7.1 1.2 2.9 0.6 1.4 100.0 0.5 1.8 995 10-14 84.4 0.3 0.0 0.6 0.0 9.0 0.8 3.0 0.5 1.4 100.0 0.9 1.5 959 15-17 81.0 0.0 0.0 0.7 0.0 8.6 1.9 3.3 1.9 2.6 100.0 0.7 3.9 619 Wealth index quintiles  Poorest 82.9 0.0 0.0 0.8 0.0 7.9 1.8 5.6 0.3 0.7 100.0 0.8 2.1 571 Second 83.4 0.4 0.0 0.7 0.0 10.6 1.1 1.5 0.7 1.6 100.0 1.1 2.1 623 Middle 85.5 0.0 0.0 1.1 0.0 7.6 0.6 2.1 0.8 2.2 100.0 1.1 1.4 732 Fourth 88.4 0.0 0.0 0.4 0.0 5.8 1.1 1.9 1.1 1.3 100.0 0.4 2.2 730 Richest 89.6 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 5.9 0.6 2.0 0.3 1.5 100.0 0.1 0.9 815 Ethnicity of household head  Serbian 86.5 0.1 0.0 0.6 0.0 7.2 0.9 2.5 0.6 1.6 100.0 0.7 1.6 2935 Hungarian 81.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 12.2 2.5 3.1 0.0 0.7 100.0 0.0 2.5 149 Bosnian 86.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 9.1 0.0 1.5 0.0 3.0 100.0 0.0 0.0 87 Roma 87.5 0.0 0.0 1.2 0.0 4.9 0.6 4.1 1.3 0.4 100.0 1.2 1.9 142 Other 87.6 0.0 0.0 0.8 0.0 6.5 1.0 0.1 2.8 1.2 100.0 0.8 3.8 123 Does not want to declare (78.6) (0.0) (0.0) (0.0) (0.0) (17.1) (3.7) (0.0) (0.0) (0.6) 100.0 (0.0) (3.7) 35 Missing/DK (*) (*) (*) (*) (*) (*) (*) (*) (*) (*) 100.0 (*) (*) 0 1 MICS indicator 8.13 — Children’s living arrangements 2 MICS indicator 8.14 — Prevalence of children with one or both parents dead ( ) 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 CP.11 presents information on the living arrangements and orphanhood status of children under age 18. Overall, 86 percent of children age 0-17 years live with both parents, 8 percent of children live with their mother only, while 3 percent live with their father only. Less than one percent of children age 0-17 years live with neither biological parent while both of them are alive. In Serbia, 2 percent of children age 0-17 lost one or both parents. As expected, older children are less likely than younger children to live with both parents and slightly more likely than younger children to have lost one or both parents. The 2014 Serbia MICS included a simple measure of one particular aspect of migration related to what is termed children left behind, i.e. for whom one or both parents have moved abroad. While the amount of literature is growing, the long-term effects of the benefits of remittances versus the potential adverse psycho-social effects are not yet conclusive, as there is somewhat conflicting evidence available as to the effects on children. Table CP.12 presents information on children with parents living abroad. As expected, this percentage is low in Serbia, with only 1 percent of children age 0-17 years having at least one parent living abroad. Table CP.12: Children with parents living abroad Percent distribution of children age 0-17 years by residence of parents in another country, Serbia, 2014   Percent distribution of children age 0-17 years: Percentage of children age 0-17 years with at least one parent living abroad¹ Number of children age 0-17 years With at least one parent living abroad With neither parent living abroad TotalOnly mother abroad Only father abroad Both mother and father abroad Total 0.4 0.7 0.1 98.8 100.0 1.2 3471 Sex   Male 0.4 0.8 0.1 98.7 100.0 1.3 1767 Female 0.5 0.6 0.1 98.8 100.0 1.2 1704 Region   Belgrade 0.1 0.7 0.4 98.9 100.0 1.1 747 Vojvodina 0.3 0.3 0.0 99.4 100.0 0.6 956 Sumadija and Western Serbia 0.1 0.9 0.1 98.9 100.0 1.1 982 Southern and Eastern Serbia 1.3 0.9 0.0 97.8 100.0 2.2 786 Area   Urban 0.4 0.9 0.2 98.6 100.0 1.4 2080 Other 0.5 0.4 0.0 99.1 100.0 0.9 1391 Age   0-4 0.1 0.3 0.2 99.5 100.0 0.5 897 0-2 0.0 0.2 0.0 99.7 100.0 0.3 504 3-4 0.1 0.3 0.4 99.3 100.0 0.7 393 5-9 0.3 0.5 0.2 99.0 100.0 1.0 995 10-14 1.1 1.1 0.0 97.8 100.0 2.2 959 15-17 0.0 1.0 0.0 99.0 100.0 1.0 619 Wealth index quintile   Poorest 1.2 0.4 0.0 98.4 100.0 1.6 571 Second 0.5 0.8 0.0 98.7 100.0 1.3 623 Middle 0.1 1.1 0.4 98.3 100.0 1.7 732 Fourth 0.5 0.7 0.0 98.9 100.0 1.1 730 Richest 0.0 0.4 0.1 99.5 100.0 0.5 815 Ethnicity of household head   Serbian 0.4 0.7 0.1 98.8 100.0 1.2 2935 Hungarian 1.0 0.0 0.0 99.0 100.0 1.0 149 Bosnian 0.0 2.7 0.0 97.3 100.0 2.7 87 Roma 0.3 0.8 0.0 98.8 100.0 1.2 142 Other 0.1 0.0 0.0 99.9 100.0 0.1 123 Does not want to declare (0.0) (0.0) (0.0) (100.0) 100.0 (0.0) 35 Missing/DK (*) (*) (*) (*) 100.0 (*) 0 1 MICS indicator 8.15 — Children with at least one parent living abroad ( ) Figures that are based on 25-49 unweighted cases  (*) Figures that are based on less than 25 unweighted cases 226 Serbia Multiple Indicator Cluster Survey 2014 and Serbia Roma Settlements Multiple Indicator Cluster Survey 2014226 Serbia Multiple Indicator Cluster Survey 2014 and Serbia Roma Settlements Multiple Indicator Cluster Survey 2014 Children s´ Living Arrangements and Orphanhood in Roma Settlements Table CP.11R presents information on the living arrangements and orphanhood status of children under age 18 in Roma settlements. Overall, 83 percent of children age 0-17 years live with both parents. Three percent of children age 0-17 years live with neither biological parent, while 2 percent of children have lost one or both parents. Table CP.11R: Children’s living arrangements and orphanhood Percent distribution of children age 0-17 years according to living arrangements, percentage of children age 0-17 years not living with a biological parent and percentage of children who have one or both parents dead, Serbia Roma Settlements, 2014   Living with both parents Living with neither biological parent Living with mother only Living with father only Missing information on father/ mother Total Living with neither biological parent1 One or both parents dead2 Number of children age 0-17 years Only father alive Only mother alive Both alive Both dead Father alive Father dead Mother alive Mother dead Total 82.9 0.1 0.4 2.7 0.2 8.5 0.8 2.7 0.7 1.0 100.0 3.4 2.3 3460 Sex   Male 83.8 0.0 0.4 1.5 0.0 8.2 0.9 3.2 0.7 1.2 100.0 1.9 2.0 1718 Female 81.9 0.2 0.5 3.9 0.4 8.8 0.7 2.2 0.8 0.8 100.0 4.9 2.5 1742 Area   Urban 84.1 0.0 0.0 2.3 0.3 8.5 0.6 2.6 0.5 1.1 100.0 2.7 1.4 2630 Other 78.9 0.3 1.7 3.8 0.1 8.6 1.3 3.1 1.5 0.6 100.0 5.9 5.0 829 Age   0-4 86.1 0.0 0.0 0.6 0.0 9.4 0.7 2.0 0.2 1.1 100.0 0.6 0.9 1076 0-2 86.7 0.0 0.0 0.5 0.0 9.2 0.7 1.8 0.0 1.1 100.0 0.5 0.7 626 3-4 85.2 0.0 0.0 0.7 0.0 9.7 0.6 2.2 0.5 1.0 100.0 0.7 1.1 449 5-9 83.6 0.1 0.8 1.6 0.0 9.5 0.4 2.4 0.8 0.9 100.0 2.5 2.0 1011 10-14 85.6 0.0 0.3 1.7 0.0 6.4 1.3 3.1 0.7 0.8 100.0 2.1 2.4 904 15-17 68.7 0.5 0.9 11.5 1.6 8.3 1.0 4.1 1.7 1.4 100.0 14.7 5.9 469 Wealth index quintiles  Poorest 75.4 0.2 1.6 2.5 0.7 14.3 1.1 1.7 1.6 1.0 100.0 4.9 5.1 855 Second 79.6 0.0 0.1 1.8 0.1 11.7 1.3 2.8 1.2 1.4 100.0 2.0 2.7 729 Middle 85.7 0.3 0.2 2.7 0.0 6.8 0.2 2.3 0.4 1.6 100.0 3.1 0.9 681 Fourth 90.1 0.0 0.0 3.4 0.0 2.8 0.6 2.9 0.0 0.3 100.0 3.4 0.6 642 Richest 86.9 0.0 0.0 3.3 0.2 3.9 0.7 4.5 0.0 0.4 100.0 3.6 1.0 551 Wealth index   Poorest 60 percent 79.9 0.2 0.7 2.3 0.3 11.2 0.9 2.2 1.1 1.3 100.0 3.4 3.1 2266 Richest 40 percent 88.6 0.0 0.0 3.3 0.1 3.3 0.7 3.6 0.0 0.4 100.0 3.5 0.8 1194 1 MICS indicator 8.13 — Children’s living arrangements 2 MICS indicator 8.14 — Prevalence of children with one or both parents dead Monitoring the situation of children and women 227Monitoring the situation of children and women 227 Table CP.12R presents information on children with parents living abroad. In Roma settlements, only 2 percent of children age 0-17 years have at least one parent living abroad. There are no major differences by background characteristics. Table CP.12R: Children with parents living abroad Percent distribution of children age 0-17 years by residence of parents in another country, Serbia Roma Settlements, 2014 Percent distribution of children age 0-17 years: Percentage of children age 0-17 years with at least one parent living abroad¹ Number of children age 0-17 years With at least one parent living abroad With neither parent living abroad TotalOnly mother abroad Only father abroad Both mother and father abroad Total 0.3 1.4 0.2 98.2 100.0 1.8 3460 Sex   Male 0.2 1.4 0.2 98.3 100.0 1.7 1718 Female 0.3 1.4 0.2 98.1 100.0 1.9 1742 Area   Urban 0.3 1.5 0.1 98.2 100.0 1.8 2630 Other 0.2 1.1 0.5 98.2 100.0 1.8 829 Age group   0-4 0.1 1.4 0.2 98.2 100.0 1.8 1076 0-2 0.0 1.7 0.3 98.0 100.0 2.0 626 3-4 0.3 1.1 0.2 98.5 100.0 1.5 449 5-9 0.5 1.8 0.2 97.5 100.0 2.5 1011 10-14 0.2 1.2 0.2 98.3 100.0 1.7 904 15-17 0.1 0.7 0.1 99.2 100.0 0.8 469 Wealth index quintile   Poorest 0.1 3.2 0.0 96.7 100.0 3.3 855 Second 0.3 1.9 0.3 97.5 100.0 2.5 729 Middle 0.6 0.2 0.0 99.1 100.0 0.9 681 Fourth 0.0 0.2 0.6 99.2 100.0 0.8 642 Richest 0.4 0.7 0.0 99.0 100.0 1.0 551 Wealth index   Poorest 60 percent 0.3 1.9 0.1 97.7 100.0 2.3 2266 Richest 40 percent 0.2 0.4 0.3 99.1 100.0 0.9 1194 1 MICS indicator 8.15 — Children with at least one parent living abroad 228 Serbia Multiple Indicator Cluster Survey 2014 and Serbia Roma Settlements Multiple Indicator Cluster Survey 2014 Attitudes toward Children with Disabilities Children and adults with disabilities continue to face a number of barriers in relation to social, educational and professional integration. Attitudes towards them are generally negative, resulting in a reduction of possibilities and opportunities, and therefore the chances for successful inclusion into society. Furthermore, these attitudes are often the cause of denial of support and assistance to children with disabilities (e.g., lack of support required for the smooth participation in the educational process, involvement in cultural and sports activities, etc.). The focus on full inclusion of children with disabilities is an important aspect of the reform processes in Serbia as well as its obligation as per the ratified Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (UNCRPD). It entails efforts to provide a family- like environment to children with disabilities in formal care and full inclusion of children with disabilities in quality education. Although legal changes were put in place a few years ago, small scale surveys and casual analysis indicate that negative attitudes, also described as “invisible barriers”, towards children with disabilities create serious obstacles in overcoming their exclusion. An opinion poll conducted in Serbia in 2009 and other related research revealed that a high percentage of the population holds negative attitudes towards the inclusion of children with disabilities and their right to a family environment and inclusive education. Determinant analysis conducted through focus groups also showed the negative attitudes of the general public, including professionals, towards the right of children with disabilities. The questions for this module were designed on the basis of the conducted opinion poll, results of the focus groups, review of existing literature along with guidance from experts on the social inclusion of children with disabilities. As evidence shows that there are quite different attitudes towards children with physical/sensory disability and children with intellectual impairments, this module contains separate questions for each of the 2 groups. The modul was tested during the MICS pre-test exercise in Novemeber 2013 for the first time and during the MICS pilot in January 2014 for the second time. The questions were slightly revised based on the feedback from the field testing. To assist respondents in answering the set of questions, they were shown a card with smiling faces (and not smiling faces) that corresponded with the five response categories (see the Questionnaire in Appending F). MICS in Serbia assessed the attitudes of respondents towards children with disabilities by adding a survey-specific module to the Household Questionnaire used for the two surveys. Respondents were asked to express their attitudes towards different aspects of inclusion of children with disabilities related to their living environment, participation in education, the effect they have on other children and their life prospects, by agreeing or disagreeing with five statements. In addition, the composite indicator on positive attitudes is produced as a percentage of respondents who expressed positive attitudes toward children with disabilities on all five statements. The respondent who was assessed as having a positive attitude mostly agreed or strongly agreed that:  it is better for children with disabilities to live in a family  it is better for children with disabilities to attend mainstream schools  children with disability can achieve a lot in life with adequate support And mostly disagreed or strongly disagreed that:  children with disabilities have a negative influence on the everyday life of other children in the family  children with disabilities have a negative impact on the work of other students in schools. Table CP.13 presents the findings about attitudes toward children with disabilities, with separate parts regarding children with physical or sensory disabilities and children with intellectual disabilities. Monitoring the situation of children and women 229 87 percent of the respondents in Serbia believe that it is better for a child with physical or sensory disabilities to live in the family rather than in a specialized child care institution. 77 percent of them believe that children with physical or sensory disabilities do not have a negative influence on the everyday life of other children in the family. Close to one half of respondents (48 percent) believe that it is better for children with physical or sensory disabilities to attend mainstream schools rather than special schools and 62 percent of them think that children with physical and sensory disabilities attending mainstream schools do not have a negative impact on the work of other students. The majority of respondents (95 percent) believe that children with physical and sensory disabilities can achieve a lot in life if they are adequately supported. Only 35 percent of respondents express positive attitudes toward children with physical and sensory disabilities on all five statements. There are some differences by education and socioeconomic status, with the prevalence of positive attitudes increasing with the respondent’s education level and the socioeconomic status of the respondent’s household. 79 percent of the respondents believe that it is better for a child with intellectual disabilities to live in the family rather than in a specialized child care institution, and 68 percent of them believe that children with intellectual disabilities do not have a negative influence on the everyday life of other children in the family. Only 32 percent of respondents believe that it is better for children with intellectual disabilities to attend mainstream schools than special schools, while 46 percent of them believe that children with intellectual disabilities attending mainstream schools do not have a negative impact on the work of other students. As with children with physical or sensory disabilities, a high percentage of respondents (91 percent) believe that children with intellectual disabilities can achieve a lot in life if they are adequately supported. Only 20 percent of respondents express positive attitudes toward children with intellectual disabilities on all five statements. There are some differences regarding the education of respondents. 21 percent of respondents who have secondary education express positive attitudes toward children with intellectual disabilities on all five statements compared to 10 percent of those without education. 230 Serbia Multiple Indicator Cluster Survey 2014 and Serbia Roma Settlements Multiple Indicator Cluster Survey 2014 Table CP.13: Attitudes toward children with disabilities Percentage of respondents to the household questionnaire according to specific attitudes expressed toward children with disabilities, Serbia, 2014   Percentage of respondents who believe that children with physical or sensory diabilities: Percentage of respondents who express positive attitudes toward children with physical and sensory disabilities on all five statements Are better off to live in the family rather than in a specialised child care institution Do not have a negative impact on the everyday life of other children in the family Are better off to attend mainstream schools than special schools Attending mainstream schools do not have a negative impact on the work of other students Can achieve a lot in life if they are adequately supported Total 87.1 76.7 47.6 62.1 95.2 34.7 Sex Male 85.6 74.7 47.0 61.1 95.2 34.4 Female 88.0 78.0 48.0 62.7 95.3 35.0 Region Belgrade 89.8 80.9 51.5 65.4 91.4 38.7 Vojvodina 90.1 78.2 45.1 65.2 97.3 36.0 Sumadija and Western Serbia 83.8 75.5 47.2 61.7 95.8 33.4 Southern and Eastern Serbia 83.9 71.6 47.3 54.7 95.8 30.2 Area Urban 89.2 79.2 49.7 64.8 95.3 37.5 Other 83.7 72.9 44.2 57.8 95.1 30.3 Age 15-29 89.8 85.8 49.0 69.8 94.1 39.3 30-39 90.5 83.3 48.2 68.0 95.3 38.3 40-49 89.8 78.6 48.4 65.3 95.8 36.2 50-59 87.1 78.0 49.2 62.5 96.3 36.7 60+ 83.8 70.7 45.9 56.4 94.6 30.7 Education of respondent None 82.8 63.8 40.7 49.1 89.9 18.8 Primary 82.8 67.3 45.5 53.6 93.8 29.0 Secondary 87.7 79.5 48.4 64.9 96.5 36.3 Higher 90.3 81.7 48.8 66.1 94.6 38.6 Wealth index quintile Poorest 82.9 69.6 46.1 54.4 94.1 31.5 Second 85.7 77.5 45.7 60.1 96.7 31.7 Middle 88.2 78.2 48.0 64.4 96.9 36.1 Fourth 88.1 79.0 47.7 66.8 94.7 36.2 Richest 92.5 82.4 51.6 68.4 93.8 40.0 Ethnicity of the Household head Serbian 86.6 77.0 48.4 62.3 95.1 35.1 Hungarian 91.2 76.9 34.2 63.2 97.1 28.4 Bosnian 93.1 89.0 61.5 80.6 98.0 61.1 Roma 86.9 69.6 55.5 49.0 95.6 30.1 Other 87.2 74.8 42.8 58.8 97.2 31.2 Does not want to declare 96.6 61.6 37.7 57.1 82.4 27.3 Missing/DK (*) (*) (*) (*) (*) (*) (*) Figures that are based on less than 25 unweighted cases Monitoring the situation of children and women 231 Percentage of respondents who believe that children with intellectual diabilities: Percentage of respondents who express positive attitudes toward children with intellectual disabilities on all five statements Number of respondents to the household questionnaire Are better off to live in the family rather than in a specialised child care institution Do not have a negative impact on the everyday life of other children in the family Are better off to attend mainstream schools than special schools Attending mainstream schools do not have a negative impact on the work of other students Can achieve a lot in life if they are adequately supported 78.9 67.7 31.7 45.7 90.5 19.7 6191   76.2 66.2 34.3 44.6 90.0 20.7 2445 80.6 68.6 30.0 46.4 90.8 19.0 3746   84.5 73.2 30.7 49.5 85.2 20.6 1458 80.8 70.9 29.8 46.6 93.3 19.5 1785 77.7 66.9 35.6 47.5 92.6 21.8 1645 71.4 58.1 30.3 37.8 89.9 16.2 1303   80.4 70.3 32.1 47.7 90.3 20.5 3816 76.4 63.4 30.9 42.4 90.8 18.3 2375   80.2 75.0 32.1 53.6 90.0 22.2 514 84.4 73.1 33.2 48.5 89.4 24.0 934 80.6 69.9 29.5 47.4 90.1 18.7 1114 77.3 67.2 32.6 46.5 91.3 20.8 1244 76.5 63.1 31.5 41.6 90.8 17.4 2385   76.2 57.2 23.2 34.4 87.4 10.0 108 75.9 60.4 31.9 38.8 90.2 17.8 1544 79.1 69.6 32.4 46.9 91.7 20.8 2993 81.5 72.0 30.6 51.0 88.7 20.1 1545   76.2 59.9 32.0 40.2 90.2 17.9 1572 78.4 68.6 31.7 43.1 92.9 18.4 1270 78.0 70.8 31.8 47.6 91.9 21.3 1167 80.5 71.7 30.0 50.9 88.8 19.7 1112 82.6 70.4 32.8 49.4 88.3 22.1 1070   78.6 67.7 32.1 46.3 90.5 19.9 5365 81.2 71.5 18.2 36.6 91.1 12.3 289 86.1 73.3 49.7 67.2 93.3 47.6 70 83.7 62.4 35.8 37.3 84.1 22.1 98 76.9 67.2 32.7 43.8 92.9 15.5 294 84.2 55.9 25.1 34.5 83.6 19.9 72 (*) (*) (*) (*) (*) (*) 3 232 Serbia Multiple Indicator Cluster Survey 2014 and Serbia Roma Settlements Multiple Indicator Cluster Survey 2014232 Serbia Multiple Indicator Cluster Survey 2014 and Serbia Roma Settlements Multiple Indicator Cluster Survey 2014 Attitudes toward Children with Disabilities in Roma Settlements 92 percent of the respondents in Roma settlements believe that it is better for a child with physical or sensory disabilities to live in a family rather than in a specialized child care institution, and 81 percent of them believe that children with physical or sensory disabilities do not have a negative influence on the everyday life of other children in the family. A somewhat smaller percentage of respondents (73 percent) believe that it is better for children with physical or sensory disabilities to attend mainstream schools rather than special schools, and 68 percent of them think that children with physical and sensory disabilities attending mainstream schools do not have a negative impact on the work of other students. A high percentage of respondents (95 percent) believe that children with physical and sensory disabilities can achieve a lot in life if they are adequately supported. Slightly more than one half of respondents (55 percent) express positive attitudes toward children with physical and sensory disabilities on all five statements. Table CP.13R: Attitudes toward children with disabilities Percentage of respondents to the household questionnaire according to specific attitudes expressed toward children with disabilities, Serbia Roma Settlements, 2014 Percentage of respondents who believe that children with physical or sensory diabilities: Percentage of respondents who express positive attitudes toward children with physical and sensory disabilities on all five statements Are better off to live in the family rather than in a specialised child care institution Do not have a negative impact on the everyday life of other children in the family Are better off to attend mainstream schools than special schools Attending mainstream schools do not have a negative impact on the work of other students Can achieve a lot in life if they are adequately supported Total 91.6 81.2 73.4 68.1 95.0 54.7 Sex Male 91.9 82.2 73.5 67.3 95.4 55.7 Female 91.3 80.3 73.3 68.7 94.7 53.8 Area Urban 91.9 82.3 74.2 68.1 95.2 54.9 Other 90.8 78.8 71.5 67.9 94.6 54.3 Age 15-29 91.0 84.4 72.8 67.8 94.7 55.0 30-39 92.9 86.5 78.1 74.5 93.3 61.0 40-49 93.8 79.8 74.5 68.2 97.2 54.1 50-59 89.7 79.4 71.5 65.4 96.8 51.3 60+ 89.8 73.2 68.4 62.2 92.8 50.0 Education of respondent None 92.4 79.9 72.7 63.8 90.4 52.6 Primary 92.1 81.8 75.8 70.7 95.8 58.8 Secondary or higher 88.0 80.1 62.2 59.7 96.8 36.5 Wealth index quintile Poorest 92.2 79.6 73.1 67.1 91.9 56.7 Second 93.8 83.6 81.7 71.6 94.0 61.7 Middle 89.8 80.7 71.8 69.3 95.6 53.1 Fourth 93.9 83.2 67.4 64.8 95.3 51.6 Richest 88.2 79.1 72.4 67.1 98.6 49.7 Wealth index Poorest 60 percent 92.0 81.3 75.6 69.3 93.8 57.2 Richest 40 percent 91.0 81.1 69.9 66.0 97.0 50.6 Monitoring the situation of children and women 233Monitoring the situation of children and women 233 Percentage of respondents who believe that children with intellectual diabilities: Percentage of respondents who express positive attitudes toward children with intellectual disabilities on all five statements Number of respondents to the household questionnaire Are better off to live in the family rather than in a specialised child care institution Do not have a negative impact on the everyday life of other children in the family Are better off to attend mainstream schools than special schools Attending mainstream schools do not have a negative impact on the work of other students Can achieve a lot in life if they are adequately supported 80.7 71.2 54.7 55.1 89.8 37.5 1743   79.4 69.9 54.9 54.8 91.2 39.3 821 81.8 72.3 54.4 55.4 88.5 35.8 922   80.8 71.5 53.4 55.3 90.6 36.8 1225 80.4 70.4 57.5 54.7 87.9 39.2 518   79.1 74.5 56.1 57.4 90.0 38.1 396 84.5 74.9 58.4 59.8 86.8 42.6 384 82.6 74.9 56.4 57.8 94.3 38.3 386 74.7 65.9 50.9 52.8 88.0 34.1 304 81.7 61.8 49.0 44.1 89.4 31.9 273   83.0 73.5 55.8 48.0 86.0 34.9 302 80.4 71.5 56.2 58.0 90.6 40.0 1207 79.1 66.4 44.9 49.5 90.7 27.5 233   82.3 70.5 53.3 51.5 85.3 36.6 365 81.5 70.5 60.6 56.8 87.1 40.5 365 78.6 75.0 52.8 54.8 91.7 35.8 350 81.6 71.6 52.0 56.9 91.9 36.8 326 79.5 68.2 54.1 55.8 93.6 37.6 337   80.8 72.0 55.6 54.4 88.0 37.6 1081 80.5 69.9 53.1 56.4 92.8 37.2 662 There are no notable differences in attitudes toward children with physical or sensory disabilities by background characteristics. 81 percent of respondents believe that it is better for a child with intellectual disabilities to live in the family rather than in a specialized child care institution, and 71 percent of them believe that children with intellectual disabilities do not have a negative influence on the everyday life of other children in the family. 55 percent of respondents believe that it is better for children with intellectual disabilities to attend mainstream schools rather than special schools and the same percentage (55 percent) believes that children with intellectual disabilities attending mainstream schools do not have a negative impact on the work of other students. As with children with physical or sensory disabilities, a high percentage of respondents (90 percent) believe that children with intellectual disabilities can achieve a lot in life if they are adequately supported. 38 percent of respondents express positive attitudes toward children with intellectual disabilities on all five statements. 234 Serbia Multiple Indicator Cluster Survey 2014 and Serbia Roma Settlements Multiple Indicator Cluster Survey 2014 XIIXII SOCIAL PROTECTION SOCIAL PROTECTION Cash Benefit Programmes Serbia’s most important cash benefit programmes related to children are aimed at helping families to fulfil the basic needs of children (through the pro-poor cash benefits such as family social assistance and child allowances), supporting families with children with disabilities (through the disability allowance) and encouraging families to have more children (by providing birth grants). Table SP.1: Cash benefit programmes Percentage of respondents to household questionnaire that are informed about the cash benefit programmes, Serbia, 2014   Percentage informed about Number of respondents to the household questionnaire Financial social assistance Child allowance One-off assistance Disability allowance Total 94.2 98.5 90.3 96.4 6191 Region   Belgrade 88.7 99.5 90.9 95.7 1458 Vojvodina 97.8 98.4 86.8 95.4 1785 Sumadija and Western Serbia 94.4 97.7 91.7 97.0 1645 Southern and Eastern Serbia 95.0 98.3 92.6 97.5 1303 Area   Urban 94.3 99.0 90.8 96.5 3816 Other 94.0 97.6 89.4 96.1 2375 Education of household head   None 83.4 85.5 64.9 87.5 125 Primary 93.3 97.1 86.3 94.9 1645 Secondary 94.3 99.1 92.3 97.1 2970 Higher 95.8 99.7 92.9 97.3 1445 Missing/DK (*) (*) (*) (*) 6 Wealth index quintile   Poorest 92.2 95.3 83.9 93.1 1572 Second 95.1 99.0 91.3 97.3 1270 Middle 95.8 99.6 93.2 98.0 1167 Fourth 95.4 99.9 93.6 97.5 1112 Richest 93.0 99.8 91.9 97.0 1070 Ethnicity of the household head   Serbian 93.8 98.6 90.4 96.5 5365 Hungarian 99.4 99.6 93.1 98.2 289 Bosnian 91.9 91.9 83.0 95.0 70 Roma 97.0 96.8 87.1 93.7 98 Other 94.0 96.0 85.6 92.8 294 Does not want to declare (*) (*) (*) (*) 72 Missing/DK (*) (*) (*) (*) 3 (*) Figures that are based on less than 25 unweighted cases Monitoring the situation of children and women 235 Serbia has effective administrative data collection systems that provide data on the number of beneficiaries of different cash benefits. However, earlier surveys (LSMS 2007) showed a high non-take-up of child related benefits among the poor due to lack of information on the benefits and complicated administrative procedures. The introduction of a survey-specific module on cash benefits in the 2014 Serbia MICS and 2014 Serbia Roma Settlements MICS reveals the main reasons for non-take-up and provides important guidance for a policy revision. This data will also enable analysis of the targeting and the impact of child related benefits on particular outcomes for children. In Serbia, over 90 percent of respondents to the household questionnaires are informed about the existence of the main cash benefit programmes (Table SP.1). Awareness about all individual programmes increases as the education level of the head of household rises. Only 65 percent of respondents whose head of household is without education are informed about the one-off assistance compared to 93 percent of those whose head of household has higher education. In addition, 86 percent of respondents whose head of household is without education are informed about the child allowance, compared to almost all respondents whose head of household has higher education. 236 Serbia Multiple Indicator Cluster Survey 2014 and Serbia Roma Settlements Multiple Indicator Cluster Survey 2014236 Serbia Multiple Indicator Cluster Survey 2014 and Serbia Roma Settlements Multiple Indicator Cluster Survey 2014 Cash Benefit Programmes in Roma Settlements In Roma settlements, over 95 percent of respondents to the household questionnaires are informed about the existence of the main cash benefit programmes (Table SP.1R). There are no differentials in knowledge of specific cash benefit programmes by background characteristics. Table SP.1R: Cash benefit programmes Percentage of respondents to household questionnaire that are informed about the cash benefit programmes, Serbia Roma Settlements, 2014   Percentage informed about Number of respondents to the household questionnaire Financial social assistance Child allowance One-off assistance Disability allowance Total 98.4 99.3 95.8 95.4 1743 Area   Urban 98.5 99.6 96.0 95.2 1225 Other 98.2 98.7 95.6 95.8 518 Education of household head   None 96.8 98.0 95.7 94.2 282 Primary 98.6 99.5 95.5 95.2 1209 Secondary or higher 99.6 100.0 98.3 97.9 250 Missing/DK (*) (*) (*) (*) 1 Wealth index quintile   Poorest 97.9 98.5 92.8 92.7 365 Second 98.7 100.0 97.6 97.9 365 Middle 98.9 99.2 95.3 94.9 350 Fourth 98.5 99.3 97.4 95.9 326 Richest 98.2 99.7 96.3 95.7 337 Wealth index   Poorest 60 percent 98.5 99.2 95.2 95.1 1081 Richest 40 percent 98.3 99.5 96.8 95.8 662 (*) Figures that are based on less than 25 unweighted cases Monitoring the situation of children and women 237 Financial Social Assistance The financial social assistance (FSA) is a cash benefit aimed at the poorest families. Eligibility for FSA is means-tested based on all properties and earnings of the household except those from other social benefit programmes. The FSA eligibility threshold is determined as a percentage of the average wage and adjusted for household size, with different weights given to adults and children as per the equivalence scale. A maximum of 6 family members are eligible for the FSA. It is funded by the state budget and administered by the centres for social work. Data about FSA were collected through survey-specific questions added to the 2014 Serbia MICS and 2014 Serbia Roma Settlements MICS Household Questionnaires. Table SP.2 presents information about households receiving financial social assistance (FSA) as well as the percentage of households that have not applied or renewed an application for FSA during the past 12 months due to different reasons. In Serbia, 4 percent of households receive FSA. There are differences regarding almost all background variables. 2 percent of households in the Belgrade region and 6 percent in Vojvodina received FSA. 18 percent of households whose head of household is without education received FSA compared to less than 1 percent of households whose head of household is with higher education. Data show that this cash benefit is received by 11 percent of households from the poorest wealth quintile compared with no households from the richest wealth quintile. Regarding the ethnicity of the head of household, the highest percentage receiving FSA is among households whose head self-declared as Roma (38 percent). As this cash benefit is intended for the poorest households, as expected, the two main reasons for non-applying, stated by respondents to the household questionnaire were that they did not need it (43 percent) and that they knew that they did not meet the conditions (38 percent). Among other reasons for non-applying, 5 percent of household respondents stated that they didn’t know how to apply, 4 percent was told that they did not meet the conditions or they were unaware of the programme while 3 percent thought that the administrative procedure was too complicated. These reasons were stated in higher percentages among household respondents from the poorest wealth quintile and from households whose head has no education. Households from the poorest wealth quintile did not apply for the FSA programme because they were unaware of it (7 percent), did not know how to apply (14 percent) or because they were told that they did not meet the conditions (7 percent). These reasons posed even higher obstacles for the households where the head of the household has no education as 18 percent did not know how to apply, 17 percent was unaware of the programme and 6 percent found the administrative procedure too complicated. 238 Serbia Multiple Indicator Cluster Survey 2014 and Serbia Roma Settlements Multiple Indicator Cluster Survey 2014 Table SP.2: Financial social assistance (FSA) Percentage of households receiving FSA and percent distribution of households not receiving FSA during the past 12 months according to the main reason for not applying or renewing their application, Serbia, 2014   Percentage of households receiving FSA1,a Number of respondents to the household questionnaire Percent distribution of households that have Did not need any Unaware of the programme Did not know how to apply Total 3.7 6191 43.2 4.2 5.3 Region  Belgrade 1.7 1458 51.3 6.2 2.9 Vojvodina 5.7 1785 42.7 2.1 5.6 Sumadija and Western Serbia 2.6 1645 41.0 4.6 5.8 Southern and Eastern Serbia 4.6 1303 37.1 4.2 7.2 Area  Urban 3.2 3816 46.6 3.7 3.9 Other 4.6 2375 37.5 5.0 7.6 Education of household head  None 17.5 125 17.9 17.2 18.1 Primary 6.5 1645 29.7 5.1 9.7 Secondary 3.1 2970 43.7 4.3 4.6 Higher 0.7 1445 57.8 2.3 1.4 Missing/DK (*) 6 (*) (*) (*) Wealth index quintile  Poorest 10.5 1572 24.4 7.1 13.9 Second 3.4 1270 40.4 3.5 5.1 Middle 1.2 1167 46.2 2.8 1.7 Fourth 0.7 1112 46.7 3.7 2.7 Richest 0.0 1070 63.1 3.3 1.4 Ethnicity of the household head  Serbian 2.6 5365 44.2 4.3 5.4 Hungarian 10.0 289 28.9 0.6 5.1 Bosnian 5.3 70 29.0 4.4 2.2 Roma 38.1 98 25.3 3.1 9.9 Other 5.1 294 41.3 5.4 4.2 Does not want to declare 7.6 72 52.4 2.1 4.9 Missing/DK (*) 3 (*) (*) (*) 1 Survey-specific indicator — Receipt of financial social assistance a Households receiving FSA are those that have applied or renewed an application for FSA during the past 12 months, and whose application was approved  (*) Figures that are based on less than 25 unweighted cases Monitoring the situation of children and women 239 not applied or renewed an application for FSA during the past 12 months according to main reason for not applying Number of households that have not applied or renewed an application for FSA during the past 12 months Complicated administrative procedure Expensive administrative procedure Know that they do not meet the conditions Were told that they do not meet the conditions Other Missing Total 3.1 0.7 37.8 3.8 1.9 0.0 100.0 5845 2.2 0.5 32.7 3.3 0.8 0.0 100.0 1408 2.1 0.6 41.4 3.6 1.9 0.0 100.0 1659 3.7 1.0 38.6 3.4 1.9 0.0 100.0 1569 4.8 0.7 37.9 4.9 3.3 0.0 100.0 1208 2.9 0.6 37.2 3.3 1.7 0.0 100.0 3622 3.4 0.8 38.8 4.6 2.3 0.0 100.0 2223 5.8 1.8 34.6 2.6 2.0 0.0 100.0 96 3.9 1.0 40.6 6.3 3.6 0.0 100.0 1487 3.3 0.8 37.9 3.9 1.5 0.0 100.0 2826 1.6 0.1 34.8 0.9 1.1 0.0 100.0 1430 (*) (*) (*) (*) (*) (*) 100.0 6 4.4 1.6 38.8 6.7 3.0 0.0 100.0 1346 4.2 0.3 40.1 4.3 2.2 0.0 100.0 1195 2.6 1.2 40.3 4.2 1.0 0.0 100.0 1137 2.4 0.0 40.1 1.8 2.6 0.0 100.0 1098 1.4 0.1 29.1 1.0 0.8 0.0 100.0 1069 3.2 0.7 36.5 3.8 1.9 0.0 100.0 5123 2.0 0.1 56.9 3.1 3.2 0.0 100.0 260 1.1 5.9 51.6 5.1 0.5 0.0 100.0 66 5.1 1.5 39.2 9.5 6.4 0.0 100.0 53 2.8 0.0 41.9 2.1 2.2 0.0 100.0 275 2.2 0.0 31.9 6.3 0.2 0.0 100.0 65 (*) (*) (*) (*) (*) (*) 100.0 3 240 Serbia Multiple Indicator Cluster Survey 2014 and Serbia Roma Settlements Multiple Indicator Cluster Survey 2014240 Serbia Multiple Indicator Cluster Survey 2014 and Serbia Roma Settlements Multiple Indicator Cluster Survey 2014 Financial Social Assistance in Roma Settlements Table SP.2R presents information about households in Roma settlements receiving financial social assistance (FSA) as well as the percentage of households that had not applied or renewed an application for FSA during the past 12 months due to various reasons. In Roma settlements, 49 percent of households received FSA. There are differences by education of the head of household and socioeconomic status. Table SP.2R: Financial social assistance (FSA) Percentage of households receiving FSA and percent distribution of households not receiving FSA during the past 12 months according to the main reason for not applying or renewing their application, Serbia Roma Settlements, 2014 Percentage of households receiving FSA1,a Number of respondents to the household questionnaire Percent distribution of households that have Did not need any Unaware of the programme Did not know how to apply Total 49.1 1743 16.4 1.5 4.2 Area Urban 48.0 1225 16.8 1.5 3.7 Other 51.9 518 15.1 1.3 5.7 Education of household head None 65.4 282 7.1 1.1 9.5 Primary 49.0 1209 14.1 1.8 3.8 Secondary or higher 31.7 250 29.3 0.7 2.6 Missing/DK (*) 1 (*) (*) (*) Wealth index quintile Poorest 63.8 365 4.2 2.4 8.4 Second 61.2 365 4.4 2.6 5.1 Middle 46.5 350 11.5 1.8 4.8 Fourth 43.5 326 15.6 1.3 1.9 Richest 28.4 337 30.2 0.5 3.3 Wealth index Poorest 60 percent 57.3 1081 7.3 2.2 5.9 Richest 40 percent 35.8 662 24.6 0.8 2.7 1 Survey-specific indicator — Receipt of financial social assistance a Households receiving FSA are those that have applied or renewed an application for FSA during the past 12 months, and whose application was approved  (*) Figures that are based on less than 25 unweighted cases Monitoring the situation of children and women 241Monitoring the situation of children and women 241 not applied or renewed an application for FSA during the past 12 months according to main reason for not applying Number of households that have not applied or renewed an application for FSA during the past 12 months Complicated administrative procedure Expensive administrative procedure Know that they do not meet the conditions Were told that they do not meet the conditions Other Missing Total 8.1 3.8 31.6 31.2 3.2 0.1 100.0 649   7.6 3.6 36.4 27.0 3.2 0.1 100.0 470 9.6 4.1 18.9 42.3 3.1 0.0 100.0 179   5.8 4.0 30.3 32.9 9.4 0.0 100.0 78 9.8 4.8 29.0 35.0 1.5 0.1 100.0 436 4.1 0.1 40.6 17.6 4.9 0.0 100.0 133 (*) (*) (*) (*) (*) (*) 100.0 1   25.9 15.0 14.5 25.0 4.6 0.0 100.0 88 7.1 4.6 29.7 41.4 5.0 0.0 100.0 92 5.9 1.3 37.3 35.6 1.8 0.0 100.0 129 3.7 3.6 43.6 28.5 1.5 0.3 100.0 130 5.2 0.3 28.6 28.3 3.6 0.0 100.0 210   11.9 6.2 28.6 34.3 3.6 0.0 100.0 309 4.7 1.6 34.3 28.4 2.8 0.1 100.0 340 65 percent of households whose head of household has no education received FSA compared to 32 percent of households whose head of household has secondary or higher education. Additionally, 64 percent of households from the poorest wealth quintile received FSA compared to 28 percent from the richest wealth quintile. The highest percentages of households that did not apply for FSA did not do so because they knew that they did not meet the conditions (32 percent) and because they were told that they did not meet the conditions. 242 Serbia Multiple Indicator Cluster Survey 2014 and Serbia Roma Settlements Multiple Indicator Cluster Survey 2014 Child Allowance Child allowance (CA) is financially the largest cash benefit programme and covers almost 400000, or one quarter of all children in Serbia. This means-tested allowance is intended for children from lower-income families and is limited to the first four children in the family, aged 0-18. This benefit is conditioned by regular school attendance. The administration of child allowances is entrusted to municipal services, while payments are made from the State budget. The findings related to the coverage of children with CA as well as reasons for not applying for this benefit are presented in Table SP.3. The information about whether a child receives CA or not were collected for all children 0-18 years old through a survey- specific set of questions added to the 2014 Serbia MICS and 2014 Serbia Roma Settlements MICS Household Questionnaires. Percentage of children receiving CA1,a Percentage of children receiving CA, for at least 12 months2,b Number of children age 0-18 years Percent distribution of children for whom an application for CA was not submitted or Did not need any Unaware of the programme Did not know how to apply Complicated administrative procedure Expensive administrative procedure Total 27.0 25.3 3709 19.1 0.0 1.1 6.4 0.8 Sex Male 26.0 24.7 1898 20.2 0.0 1.1 6.1 1.2 Female 28.1 25.9 1811 17.9 0.1 1.1 6.7 0.4 Region Belgrade 8.6 10.2 791 26.5 0.1 0.6 6.7 1.0 Vojvodina 32.6 28.3 1017 15.1 0.0 1.3 3.3 1.3 Sumadija and Western Serbia 30.2 28.5 1056 16.1 0.0 1.3 10.2 0.6 Southern and Eastern Serbia 33.4 31.7 845 18.5 0.0 1.3 4.7 0.4 Area Urban 22.4 21.5 2223 20.4 0.1 1.3 5.5 0.7 Other 33.9 30.9 1486 16.9 0.0 0.9 7.9 1.0 Age 0-6 25.2 20.2 1287 20.1 0.1 1.4 6.6 1.0 7-14 32.0 31.9 1564 17.0 0.0 0.8 6.2 0.7 15-18 20.6 20.9 858 21.0 0.0 1.1 6.4 0.7 Mother’s education None 31.8 30.4 36 (3.2) (0.0) (3.2) (15.8) (4.8) Primary 49.4 48.4 471 2.8 0.0 1.6 16.0 3.9 Secondary 29.9 28.3 1999 16.1 0.0 0.7 6.7 0.8 Higher 11.9 9.2 886 30.1 0.1 1.2 3.0 0.0 Cannot be determined 16.7 16.5 317 15.5 0.0 2.2 7.0 0.6 Father’s education None 57.1 57.1 29 (*) (*) (*) (*) (*) Primary 40.6 40.5 391 6.7 0.0 1.7 19.6 4.9 Secondary 29.9 27.1 1997 17.6 0.0 0.4 5.6 0.3 Higher 11.6 10.8 687 29.9 0.2 0.5 1.8 0.0 Father not in household 24.8 24.3 605 14.3 0.0 4.0 8.6 1.8 Wealth index quintile Poorest 47.7 46.3 605 6.7 0.0 0.5 17.2 5.3 Second 38.8 37.2 688 11.8 0.1 1.3 8.6 0.5 Middle 24.4 22.0 775 11.8 0.0 2.2 7.4 0.8 Fourth 21.2 18.9 781 14.2 0.1 0.7 5.6 0.1 Richest 10.5 9.7 861 35.8 0.0 0.8 1.5 0.1 Ethnicity of the household head  Serbian 23.6 21.9 3135 19.9 0.0 1.1 6.5 0.8 Hungarian 35.2 32.4 157 3.2 0.0 0.2 6.0 0.7 Bosnian 91.1 87.1 92 (*) (*) (*) (*) (*) Roma 44.1 48.3 152 11.3 0.0 2.2 13.1 3.8 Other 37.4 31.8 137 19.2 0.8 3.0 2.5 0.0 Does not want to declare (13.2) (6.2) 35 (31.5) (0.0) (0.0) (0.0) (1.7) Missing/DK (*) (*) 2 (*) (*) (*) (*) (*) Monitoring the situation of children and women 243 renewed according to the main reason for non-submission or renewal Number of children for whom an application for CA was not submitted Know that they do not meet the conditions Were told that they do not meet the conditions Other Missing Total 55.5 14.3 2.6 0.1 100.0 2504   53.4 14.6 3.1 0.1 100.0 1296 57.7 14.0 2.0 0.1 100.0 1209   49.7 12.1 3.2 0.1 100.0 675 63.5 12.6 2.9 0.0 100.0 638 54.2 15.6 2.0 0.1 100.0 679 54.8 17.7 2.3 0.2 100.0 512   57.5 12.3 2.0 0.1 100.0 1596 51.9 17.9 3.5 0.1 100.0 908   52.3 14.5 3.8 0.2 100.0 899 58.6 15.3 1.2 0.0 100.0 972 55.2 12.5 3.0 0.0 100.0 633   (39.3) (33.7) (0.0) (0.0) 100.0 25 43.7 28.5 3.4 0.0 100.0 197 57.8 14.8 3.1 0.0 100.0 1272 55.1 9.0 1.3 0.2 100.0 765 55.8 15.3 3.6 0.1 100.0 246   (*) (*) (*) (*) 100.0 12 39.3 21.3 6.5 0.0 100.0 195 56.4 17.3 2.3 0.0 100.0 1290 61.4 5.4 0.5 0.3 100.0 601 51.6 14.9 4.7 0.1 100.0 405   37.8 28.0 4.5 0.0 100.0 257 53.5 20.0 4.2 0.1 100.0 366 57.4 17.3 3.2 0.0 100.0 533 62.4 14.3 2.6 0.0 100.0 586 55.8 5.0 0.8 0.2 100.0 762 54.9 14.5 2.4 0.1 100.0 2234 81.6 6.5 1.7 0.0 100.0 91 (*) (*) (*) (*) 100.0 8 33.3 33.3 3.0 0.0 100.0 61 65.6 4.1 4.8 0.0 100.0 81 (46.3) (6.1) (14.3) (0.0) 100.0 28 (*) (*) (*) (*) 100.0 2 Table SP.3: Child allowance (CA) Percentage of children age 0-18 years receiving child allowance (CA), percentage of children receiving CA for at least 12 months and the percent distribution od children according to the main reason for non-submission or renewal of an application for CA in the past 12 months, Serbia, 2014 1 Survey-specific indicator — Children receiving child allowance 2 Survey-specific indicator — Children receiving child allowance, for at least 12 months a Children receiving CA are those for whom an application was submitted or renewed in the past 12 months, and whose application was approved  b Children receiving CA for at least 12 months are those for whom an application was submitted or renewed in the past 12 months, who are receiving CA and have been doing so for more than 12 month  ( ) Figures that are based on 25-49 unweighted cases  (*) Figures that are based on less than 25 unweighted cases Overall, 27 percent of children in Serbia receive CA and 25 percent have been receiving CA for at least 12 months. There are some differences regarding regions: out of all children from the Belgrade region, 9 percent receive CA while this is the case for around 30 percent of children from other regions. In addition, 22 percent of children from urban areas and 34 percent of children from other areas receive the child allowance. As expected, receipt of CA is negatively correlated with socioeconomic status; 48 percent of children that live in households from the poorest wealth quintile receive CA compared with 11 percent of children living in the richest wealth quintile. For the majority of children where the application for CA was not submitted or renewed, the main reason for not doing so was because the household knew that they did not meet the conditions (56 percent), while in 14 percent of cases they were told that they did not meet the conditions. More than one quarter (28 percent) of those living in the poorest wealth quintile were told they did not meet the conditions, while for 17 percent of children age 0-18 years for whom an application for CA was not submitted, the main reason was that the administrative procedure was too complicated. 244 Serbia Multiple Indicator Cluster Survey 2014 and Serbia Roma Settlements Multiple Indicator Cluster Survey 2014244 Serbia Multiple Indicator Cluster Survey 2014 and Serbia Roma Settlements Multiple Indicator Cluster Survey 2014 Child Allowance in Roma Settlements The findings related to the coverage of children with the child allowance (CA) as well as the reasons for not applying for this benefit are presented in the Table SP.3R. The information about whether a child receives CA or not are collected for all children 0-18 years old through a survey-specific set of questions added to the 2014 Serbia MICS and 2014 Serbia Roma Settlements MICS Household Questionnaires. Table SP.3R: Child allowance (CA) Percentage of children age 0-18 years receiving child allowance (CA), percentage of children receiving CA for at least 12 months and the percent distribution od children according to the main reason for non-submission or renewal of an application for CA in the past 12 months, Serbia Roma Settlements, 2014 Percentage of children receiving CA1,a Percentage of children receiving CA, for at least 12 months2,b Number of children age 0-18 years Percent distribution of children for Did not need any Unaware of the programme Did not know how to apply Total 60.4 56.1 3604 1.8 0.3 1.2 Sex  Male 59.2 55.0 1784 2.2 0.2 1.3 Female 61.5 57.2 1820 1.3 0.5 1.1 Area Urban 61.4 56.6 2730 0.9 0.4 1.3 Other 57.2 54.5 874 4.4 0.0 0.8 Age 0-6 years 61.8 52.4 1465 1.3 0.5 2.1 7-14 years 71.6 70.9 1525 2.6 0.2 0.9 15-18 years 29.1 28.1 613 1.6 0.3 0.4 Mother’s education  None 53.4 49.9 875 0.0 0.6 1.5 Primary 66.9 62.5 2248 2.1 0.2 1.3 Secondary or higher 68.2 58.5 223 10.7 0.0 0.0 Cannot be determined 20.1 18.9 258 1.1 0.4 0.5 Father’s education  None 57.7 53.3 294 0.0 0.0 3.2 Primary 63.7 59.9 2232 2.0 0.5 1.0 Secondary or higher 68.2 63.4 459 4.5 0.0 0.0 Father not in household 43.6 38.3 618 0.7 0.2 1.3 Wealth index quintile  Poorest 44.7 40.8 878 0.0 0.6 1.5 Second 61.9 57.9 753 0.0 0.6 2.8 Middle 64.7 59.7 700 1.4 0.0 0.0 Fourth 71.9 68.2 669 0.3 0.0 0.0 Richest 63.3 58.5 604 9.4 0.0 0.4 Wealth index Poorest 60 percent 56.3 52.0 2331 0.3 0.5 1.5 Richest 40 percent 67.8 63.6 1273 5.5 0.0 0.2 1 Survey-specific indicator — Children receiving child allowance 2 Survey-specific indicator — Children receiving child allowance, for at least 12 months a Children receiving CA are those for whom an application was submitted or renewed in the past 12 months, and whose application was approved  b Children receiving CA for at least 12 months are those for whom an application was submitted or renewed in the past 12 months, who are receiving CA and have been doing so for more than 12 month  Monitoring the situation of children and women 245Monitoring the situation of children and women 245 whom an application for CA was not submitted or renewed according to the main reason for non-submission or renewal Number of children for whom an application for CA was not submitted Complicated administrative procedure Expensive administrative procedure Know that they do not meet the conditions Were told that they do not meet the conditions Other Missing Total 14.6 6.0 37.3 27.2 10.1 1.5 100.0 1195 16.1 7.0 33.4 29.6 9.2 1.1 100.0 609 13.2 4.9 41.4 24.7 10.9 2.0 100.0 586   14.9 5.4 38.9 26.2 10.1 2.0 100.0 899 14.0 7.8 32.6 30.2 10.1 0.1 100.0 296   18.3 8.6 30.8 22.3 14.7 1.5 100.0 431 18.0 5.9 33.1 26.2 10.2 3.1 100.0 366 7.6 3.2 48.4 33.4 4.9 0.3 100.0 398 15.2 8.4 41.3 18.9 13.5 0.7 100.0 362 17.4 5.5 30.5 30.3 9.9 2.7 100.0 590 1.3 0.0 35.2 48.0 4.8 0.0 100.0 64 9.1 4.6 52.6 26.2 5.5 0.0 100.0 179 20.0 14.0 25.2 17.1 19.1 1.4 100.0 117 17.3 4.9 36.7 26.5 9.4 1.7 100.0 672 2.1 0.4 40.4 43.6 7.9 1.0 100.0 125 11.6 7.8 42.4 25.8 8.8 1.3 100.0 281 16.0 11.8 33.2 23.1 12.8 0.9 100.0 418 22.7 2.1 38.3 23.2 10.4 0.0 100.0 240 15.3 2.0 38.5 33.7 9.1 0.0 100.0 199 8.3 1.8 51.5 21.5 7.3 9.3 100.0 147 5.6 5.3 33.0 38.9 6.7 0.5 100.0 190   17.7 6.8 35.9 25.6 11.3 0.4 100.0 858 6.8 3.8 41.1 31.3 7.0 4.4 100.0 337 60 percent of children in Roma settlements receive CA and 56 percent have been receiving CA for at least 12 months. Differences are noted according to both the mother’s and father’s education level with higher coverage observed among children whose parents have a higher level of education. 53 percent of children whose mother has no education receive CA compared with 68 percent of children whose mothers have secondary or higher education Although CA is a means-tested conditional cash transfer aimed at the poor, the coverage is the lowest within the poorest wealth quintile (45 percent). 18 percent of those in the bottom three wealth quintiles cited complicated administrative procedures as a reason for not applying. The coverage with CA is the lowest among the oldest age group of children age 15-18 years (29 percent) which can be attributed to the low school attendance of children from this age group since this benefit is conditioned by regular school attendance. 246 Serbia Multiple Indicator Cluster Survey 2014 and Serbia Roma Settlements Multiple Indicator Cluster Survey 2014 Birth Grant The universal birth grant is aimed at increasing Serbia’s birth rate. It provides a grant for every newborn, up to a maximum of four children per family. The amount of the grant increases with each additional sibling, most notably for the second child for whom the grant is four times higher than for the first. The right to this allowance is limited to mothers with Percentage of children who received the birth grant1 Number of children under age 5 Percent distribution of children for whom an application for a birth grant was not submitted Did not need any Unaware of the programme Did not know how to apply Complicated administrative procedure Expensive administrative procedure Know that they do not meet the conditions Total 88.5 2720 5.4 3.1 1.3 7.8 0.0 38.2 Sex Male 89.7 1400 7.5 4.2 2.0 6.5 0.0 30.4 Female 87.2 1320 3.3 2.1 0.6 9.0 0.0 45.4 Region Belgrade 86.5 733 (2.0) (6.9) (0.0) (4.9) (0.0) (47.8) Vojvodina 89.3 753 0.0 1.1 2.6 6.6 0.0 17.8 Sumadija and Western Serbia 85.5 706 11.3 1.1 1.7 11.3 0.0 43.5 Southern and Eastern Serbia 93.9 528 (7.6) (6.0) (0.0) (5.5) (0.0) (44.2) Area Urban 88.7 1722 4.4 4.2 0.7 4.7 0.0 40.7 Other 88.1 998 6.8 1.5 2.2 12.8 0.0 34.3 Age 0-11 months 76.5 566 (8.0) (0.0) (0.0) (1.7) (0.0) (13.1) 0-5 months 66.9 321 (*) (*) (*) (*) (*) (*) 6-11 months 89.1 245 (*) (*) (*) (*) (*) (*) 12-23 months 94.8 489 (5.1) (4.0) (2.3) (13.8) (0.0) (37.2) 24-35 months 92.4 465 (10.7) (0.0) (2.3) (1.1) (0.0) (37.0) 36-47 months 91.1 545 (3.3) (10.9) (1.2) (25.8) (0.0) (34.7) 48-59 months 89.0 655 (1.2) (2.8) (1.9) (4.0) (0.0) (70.0) Mother’s education None 54.1 32 (*) (*) (*) (*) (*) (*) Primary 81.0 309 (1.0) (0.7) (0.0) (10.1) (0.0) (40.1) Secondary 91.1 1380 10.8 2.6 3.3 7.2 0.0 27.1 Higher 88.3 999 (2.8) (6.1) (0.0) (5.9) (0.0) (48.5) Father’s education None (*) 40 (*) (*) (*) (*) (*) (*) Primary 78.2 263 1.1 2.2 2.9 12.5 0.0 39.0 Secondary 92.3 1485 6.5 2.0 1.6 8.9 0.0 33.6 Higher 85.9 744 (4.4) (5.8) (0.0) (4.3) (0.0) (53.6) Father not in household 83.6 186 (*) (*) (*) (*) (*) (*) Wealth index quintile Poorest 83.0 411 0.9 1.3 0.9 18.8 0.0 29.0 Second 89.9 425 (11.0) (0.0) (6.7) (3.7) (0.0) (32.0) Middle 87.4 522 (*) (*) (*) (*) (*) (*) Fourth 93.7 609 (2.7) (5.5) (0.0) (12.9) (0.0) (29.5) Richest 87.1 752 (8.6) (6.9) (0.0) (1.8) (0.0) (52.9) Ethnicity of the household head Serbian 90.3 2306 7.4 4.3 1.2 9.6 0.0 33.2 Hungarian 99.3 83 - - - - - - Bosnian 90.0 61 (*) (*) (*) (*) (*) (*) Roma 59.7 91 (2.0) (1.3) (0.0) (9.9) (0.0) (19.6) Other 85.0 138 (*) (*) (*) (*) (*) (*) Does not want to declare (*) 40 (*) (*) (*) (*) (*) (*) Missing/DK (*) 1 - - - - - - Monitoring the situation of children and women 247 according to the main reason for non-application Number of children for whom an application for a birth grant was not submitted There is still time/ I will apply Other Missing Total 19.2 24.5 0.0 100.0 230   26.7 22.6 0.0 100.0 111 12.2 26.2 0.0 100.0 119   (20.9) (17.6) (0.0) 100.0 68 24.3 45.5 0.0 100.0 59 16.4 14.7 0.0 100.0 87 (7.8) (29.0) (0.0) 100.0 16   19.9 25.5 0.0 100.0 141 18.1 22.9 0.0 100.0 88   (61.7) (15.5) (0.0) 100.0 71 (*) (*) (*) 100.0 54 (*) (*) (*) 100.0 17 (0.0) (32.5) (0.0) 100.0 23 (0.0) (48.9) (0.0) 100.0 31 (0.0) (24.1) (0.0) 100.0 41 (0.0) (20.1) (0.0) 100.0 63   (*) (*) (*) 100.0 10 (9.3) (36.7) (0.0) 100.0 56 24.8 24.2 0.0 100.0 89 (22.4) (14.3) (0.0) 100.0 76   (*) (*) (*) 100.0 1 9.7 30.2 0.0 100.0 52 28.7 18.6 0.0 100.0 88 (21.4) (10.5) (0.0) 100.0 64 (*) (*) (*) 100.0 24   13.3 33.8 0.0 100.0 60 (23.3) (23.2) (0.0) 100.0 36 (*) (*) (*) 100.0 41 (22.3) (27.0) (0.0) 100.0 28 (23.1) (6.7) (0.0) 100.0 66   24.6 19.6 0.0 100.0 158 - - - 100.0 - (*) (*) (*) 100.0 4 (2.3) (60.6) (0.0) 100.0 28 (*) (*) (*) 100.0 15 (*) (*) (*) 100.0 25 - - - 100.0 0 Serbian citizenship. The information regarding whether a child received a birth grant or not was collected for all children under five through a survey-specific module that was added to the 2014 Serbia MICS and 2014 Serbia Roma Settlements MICS Questionnaires for children under five. Table SP.4: Birth grant Percentage of children under age 5 who received the birth grant and the percent distribution of children this age for whom an application for a birth grant was not submitted according to the main reason for not applying, Serbia, 2014 1 Survey-specific indicator — Children received a birth grant ( ) Figures that are based on 25-49 unweighted cases  (*) Figures that are based on less than 25 unweighted cases “-” Denotes 0 unweighted cases in that cell Table SP.4 presents data on the percentage of children who received a birth grant. 89 percent of children under five in Serbia received the birth grant. There are some differences by region and mother’s education. 86 percent of children in Sumadija and Western Serbia received the birth grant compared with 94 percent in Southern and Eastern Serbia. Only 54 percent of children whose mother has no education received the birth grant compared to 91 and 88 percent of children whose mother has secondary or higher education, respectively. For the majority of children whose mothers did not apply for this benefit, the main reason was that they knew they did not meet the conditions (38 percent). Other key reasons reported were that: there was still time and they would apply (19 percent), they found the administrative procedure to be too complicated (8 percent), or they did not need this benefit (5 percent). A complicated administrative procedure was an obstacle for applying for 19 percent of children whose mothers are from the poorest households. 248 Serbia Multiple Indicator Cluster Survey 2014 and Serbia Roma Settlements Multiple Indicator Cluster Survey 2014248 Serbia Multiple Indicator Cluster Survey 2014 and Serbia Roma Settlements Multiple Indicator Cluster Survey 2014 Birth Grant in Roma Settlements Table SP.4R presents data on the percentage of children from Roma settlements who received a birth grant. Overall, 76 percent of children from Roma settlements received a birth grant. Differentials exist according to the mother’s education level, in which 63 percent of children whose mother has no education received the birth grant compared to 90 percent of children whose mother has secondary or higher education. Table SP.4R: Birth grant Percentage of children under age 5 who received the birth grant and the percent distribution of children this age for whom an application for a birth grant was not submitted according to the main reason for not applying, Serbia Roma Settlements, 2014 Percentage of children who received the birth grant1 Number of children under age 5 Percent distribution of children for whom an applica Did not need any Unaware of the programme Did not know how to apply Complicated administrative procedure Expensive administrative procedure Total 75.6 1515 0.0 5.1 8.5 17.5 8.3 Sex Male 74.7 787 0.0 5.2 10.4 16.4 9.9 Female 76.5 728 0.0 5.1 6.5 18.6 6.6 Area Urban 75.2 1135 0.0 4.3 9.1 19.1 8.0 Other 76.7 380 0.0 7.8 6.5 12.2 9.2 Age 0-11 months 58.3 276 0.0 3.8 9.3 15.0 5.0 0-5 months 41.0 146 (0.0) (0.0) (11.7) (18.4) (2.3) 6-11 months 77.8 130 (0.0) (12.9) (3.5) (7.0) (11.3) 12-23 months 79.1 318 0.0 3.3 7.2 16.2 10.8 24-35 months 80.1 281 (0.0) (5.1) (7.5) (12.1) (15.2) 36-47 months 80.0 324 0.0 5.6 12.1 18.7 1.2 48-59 months 78.7 316 (0.0) (8.7) (5.8) (25.9) (12.3) Mother’s education None 62.6 361 0.0 4.0 11.9 23.6 11.3 Primary 78.4 1031 0.0 5.7 6.9 14.1 6.9 Secondary or higher 90.2 123 (*) (*) (*) (*) (*) Father’s education None 79.1 161 (0.0) (15.7) (25.7) (3.9) (7.6) Primary 75.2 950 0.0 3.8 8.5 21.6 3.8 Secondary or higher 83.2 222 (0.0) (8.4) (1.4) (7.1) (0.0) Father not in household 65.3 182 (0.0) (1.9) (2.9) (15.4) (33.2) Wealth index quintile Poorest 62.6 436 0.0 5.1 7.8 21.2 15.3 Second 78.2 317 0.0 8.8 12.5 10.0 5.6 Middle 76.7 300 (0.0) (3.6) (13.7) (13.5) (0.0) Fourth 92.0 254 (*) (*) (*) (*) (*) Richest 77.3 208 (0.0) (2.0) (1.2) (22.8) (0.0) Wealth index Poorest 60 percent 71.3 1053 0.0 5.5 10.0 17.3 10.1 Richest 40 percent 85.4 462 (0.0) (3.3) (2.0) (18.4) (0.0) 1 Survey-specific indicator — Children received a birth grant ( ) 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 249Monitoring the situation of children and women 249 ation for a birth grant was not submitted according to the main reason for non-application Number of children for whom an application for a birth grant was not submitted Know that they do not meet the conditions There is still time/ I will apply Other Missing Total 35.7 7.9 16.7 0.0 100.0 315   31.0 12.5 14.3 0.0 100.0 162 40.6 3.0 19.3 0.0 100.0 153   36.6 8.0 14.4 0.0 100.0 240 32.5 7.4 24.3 0.0 100.0 74   17.6 28.3 20.9 0.0 100.0 88 (9.4) (35.3) (22.9) (0.0) 100.0 62 (37.0) (11.9) (16.4) (0.0) 100.0 26 47.3 0.0 15.1 0.0 100.0 61 (43.5) (0.0) (16.5) (0.0) 100.0 48 46.9 0.0 14.8 0.0 100.0 60 (32.4) (0.0) (14.1) (0.0) 100.0 58   33.6 2.5 12.3 0.0 100.0 114 35.8 11.5 19.1 0.0 100.0 191 (*) (*) (*) (*) 100.0 9   (34.1) (0.0) (13.0) (0.0) 100.0 29 37.0 8.7 16.7 0.0 100.0 204 (51.9) (13.6) (17.5) (0.0) 100.0 32 (20.3) (5.7) (18.6) (0.0) 100.0 49   32.7 3.4 13.9 0.0 100.0 151 31.6 6.2 25.5 0.0 100.0 53 (39.9) (1.4) (27.9) (0.0) 100.0 53 (*) (*) (*) (*) 100.0 19 (39.9) (28.2) (6.0) (0.0) 100.0 39   34.0 3.5 19.2 0.0 100.0 257 (43.2) (27.4) (5.7) (0.0) 100.0 58 36 percent of children whose mothers did not submit an application for a birth grant knew that they did not meet the conditions, while 18 percent stated that the administrative procedure was too complicated. 9 percent did not know how to apply and 8 percent thought it too costly to apply. For 22 percent of children from the poorest households for whom an application for a birth grant was not submitted, procedures were too complicated, for 15 percent it was too expensive to apply and 8 percent did not know how to apply. 250 Serbia Multiple Indicator Cluster Survey 2014 and Serbia Roma Settlements Multiple Indicator Cluster Survey 2014 XIIIXIII SUBJECTIVE SUBJECTIVE WELL-BEINGWELL-BEING Subjective Well-being in Serbia Subjective perceptions of individuals of their incomes, health, living environments and the like, play a significant role in their lives and can impact their perception of well-being, irrespective of objective conditions such as actual income and physical health status81. In the MICS, a set of questions were asked to women age 15-24 years to understand how satisfied this group of young women was in different areas of their lives, such as their family life, friendships, school, current job, health, where they live, how they are treated by others, how they look, and their current income. Life satisfaction is a measure of an individual’s perceived level of well-being. Understanding young women’s satisfaction in different areas of their lives can help to gain a comprehensive picture of young women’s life situations. A distinction can also be made between life satisfaction and happiness. Happiness is a fleeting emotion that can be affected by numerous factors, including day-to-day factors such as the weather, or a recent death in the family. It is possible for a person to be satisfied with job, income, family life, friends, and other aspects of life, but still be unhappy, or vice versa. In addition to the set of questions on life satisfaction, the survey also asked questions about happiness and the respondents’ perceptions of a better life. To assist respondents in answering the set of questions on happiness and life satisfaction they were shown a card with smiling faces (and not so smiling faces) that corresponded to the response categories (see the Questionnaires in Appendix F) ‘very satisfied’, ‘somewhat satisfied‘, ‘neither satisfied nor unsatisfied’, ‘somewhat unsatisfied’ and ‘very unsatisfied’. For the question on happiness, the same scale was used, this time ranging from ‘very happy’ to ‘very unhappy’, in the same fashion. 81 OECD, 2013. OECD Guidelines on Measuring Subjective Well Being, OECD Publishing, http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/9789264191655-en Percentage of women age 15-24 years who are very Family life Friendships Health Living environ- ment Total 92.8 91.8 94.8 80.5 Age  15-19 93.3 91.1 95.5 80.2 15-17 93.0 93.3 94.6 80.2 18-19 93.7 88.3 96.7 80.2 20-24 92.3 92.5 94.1 80.8 Region  Belgrade 83.5 89.1 92.8 83.9 Vojvodina 95.3 96.4 93.9 81.4 Sumadija and Western Serbia 97.2 93.7 96.0 82.6 Southern and Eastern Serbia 92.8 86.6 96.0 73.5 Area  Urban 91.1 92.3 93.5 79.6 Other 95.4 91.0 96.9 82.0 Marital status  Ever married/in union 95.6 85.2 95.2 83.5 Never married/in union 92.4 92.7 94.7 80.1 Education  None (*) (*) (*) (*) Primary 92.0 87.6 95.3 71.9 Secondary 92.5 91.2 95.3 80.0 Higher 93.3 93.4 93.9 82.8 Wealth index quintile  Poorest 94.9 92.1 93.9 72.7 Second 96.7 87.8 97.1 79.1 Middle 92.2 93.1 90.9 85.7 Fourth 86.5 91.6 96.1 80.0 Richest 93.9 94.7 95.8 81.5 Ethnicity of household head  Serbian 92.7 92.1 95.7 81.0 Hungarian (87.2) (97.0) (74.1) (82.6) Bosnian (98.8) (98.2) (100.0) (98.8) Roma (90.8) (73.9) (94.5) (70.9) Other (95.8) (88.6) (88.1) (74.0) Does not want to declare (*) (*) (*) (*) Missing/DK (*) (*) (*) (*) Monitoring the situation of children and women 251 or somewhat satisfied in selected domains: Percentage of women age 15-24 years who: Number of women age 15-24 years Percentage of women age 15-24 years who are very or some- what satis- fied with school Number of women age 15-24 years attending school Percentage of women age 15-24 years who are very or somewhat satisfied with their job Number of women age 15-24 years who have a job Percentage of women age 15-24 years who are very or somewhat satisfied with their income Number of women age 15-24 years who have an income Treatment by others The way they look Are attending school Have a job Have an inco- me 83.0 89.2 71.9 11.3 25.6 1077 87.4 774 72.8 122 63.3 276 84.6 91.0 91.2 2.6 14.7 515 87.8 469 (*) 14 72.5 76 85.3 87.9 98.9 0.8 13.3 292 86.7 288 (*) 2 (81.9) 39 83.6 95.1 81.2 5.0 16.5 223 89.6 181 (*) 11 (62.7) 37 81.6 87.6 54.2 19.2 35.6 562 86.8 304 69.5 108 59.8 200 83.0 90.8 80.5 17.7 26.4 231 82.7 186 (*) 41 (48.6) 61 88.3 90.7 72.2 9.7 41.9 273 89.7 197 (88.9) 26 68.5 115 81.3 86.4 67.7 10.9 19.8 330 85.1 223 (66.7) 36 59.0 65 79.4 89.9 69.0 7.6 14.4 242 93.0 167 (*) 18 79.7 35 80.2 88.4 75.0 11.1 26.2 653 86.5 490 59.7 73 64.2 171 87.5 90.5 67.1 11.6 24.7 423 89.0 284 92.1 49 61.7 104 83.0 87.1 14.7 19.0 42.4 129 (*) 19 88.4 24 62.0 55 83.1 89.5 79.7 10.2 23.3 948 88.0 755 68.8 97 63.5 221 (*) (*) (*) (*) (*) 4 - 0 - 0 (*) 1 85.1 87.0 17.7 10.2 33.6 56 (*) 10 (*) 6 (*) 19 84.6 89.0 67.2 12.7 23.7 622 88.3 418 81.9 79 70.1 147 80.2 89.9 87.7 9.4 27.7 395 86.6 346 (58.9) 37 59.0 109 82.6 88.0 48.4 7.9 24.6 137 93.5 66 (*) 11 (52.5) 34 78.6 90.0 73.5 8.5 20.0 243 90.0 179 (62.5) 21 58.8 49 83.0 87.2 65.1 15.6 27.8 249 86.8 162 (74.8) 39 58.0 69 80.9 88.4 76.5 11.5 26.8 219 82.1 167 86.2 25 (63.8) 59 90.1 92.1 87.3 11.4 28.6 229 88.1 200 (*) 26 (77.3) 65 82.8 88.9 74.5 11.2 25.4 936 87.8 697 72.2 105 66.2 238 (78.4) (87.9) (82.9) (6.6) (24.3) 38 (*) 32 (*) 2 (*) 9 (97.3) (100.0) (48.6) (19.0) (21.3) 22 (*) 11 (*) 4 (*) 5 (76.1) (92.2) (28.4) (6.5) (19.8) 34 (*) 10 (*) 2 (*) 7 (86.9) (86.8) (56.3) (7.0) (32.9) 36 (*) 20 (*) 3 (*) 12 (*) (*) (*) (*) (*) 9 (*) 3 (*) 5 (*) 5 (*) (*) (*) (*) (*) 1 (*) 1 - 0 - 0 Table SW.1: Domains of life satisfaction Percentage of women age 15-24 years who are very or somewhat satisfied in selected domains of satisfaction, Serbia, 2014 ( ) Figures that are based on 25-49 unweighted cases (*) Figures that are based on less than 25 unweighted cases “-” Denotes 0 unweighted cases in that cell 252 Serbia Multiple Indicator Cluster Survey 2014 and Serbia Roma Settlements Multiple Indicator Cluster Survey 2014 Table SW.1 shows the proportion of young women age 15-24 years in Serbia, who are very or somewhat satisfied in selected domains. Note that for three domains, satisfaction with school, job and income, the denominators are confined to those who are currently attending school, have a job, and have an income. Of the different domains, young women are the most satisfied with their health (95 percent), their family life (93 percent) and their friendships (92 percent). Among the domains, young women are the least satisfied with their current income, with 74 percent of young women not having an income at all. If observed by regions, young women are less satisfied with their living environment in Southern and Eastern Serbia (74 percent) compared to other regions, where the percentages range from 81-84 percent. In Table SW.2 proportions of women age 15-24 years with overall life satisfaction are shown. “Life satisfaction” is defined as those who are very or somewhat satisfied with their life overall, and is based on a single question which was asked after the life satisfaction questions on all of the above-mentioned domains, with the exception of the question on satisfaction with income, which was asked later. In total, 93 percent of 15-24 year old women are satisfied with their life overall. The proportion of women age 15-19 years who are satisfied with life is slightly higher (97 percent) than among those age 20-24 years (90 percent). As for regions, young women in Southern and Eastern Serbia are the most satisfied with their life (97 percent), as opposed to women living in the Belgrade region who are the least satisfied (88 percent). These proportions do not vary notably by marital status. As a summary measure, the average life satisfaction score is also calculated and presented in Table SW.2. The score is simply calculated by averaging the responses to the question on overall life satisfaction, ranging from very satisfied (1) to very unsatisfied (5) (see questionnaires in Appendix F). Therefore, the lower the average score, the higher the life satisfaction levels. As Table SW.2 indicates, the life satisfaction level is higher for women age 15-19 compared to the 20-24 year age group. The highest level of life satisfaction is seen among women living in households in the richest wealth quintile. The table also shows that 94 percent of women age 15-24 years are very or somewhat happy. Women this age who are living in the Belgrade region are less likely to be very or somewhat happy than those in other regions. Comparing 15-19 year old women to 20-24 year old women, the proportion of women who are very or somewhat happy is 97 percent and 91 percent, respectively. In addition to the series of questions on life satisfaction and happiness, young women were also asked two simple questions on whether they think their life improved during the last one year, and whether they think their life will be better in one year’s time. Such information may contribute to our understanding of the desperation that may exist among young women, as well as hopelessness and hopes for the future. Specific combinations of the perceptions during the last one year and expectations for the next one year may provide valuable information to understand the general sense of well-being among young women. Monitoring the situation of children and women 253 Table SW.2: Overall life satisfaction and happiness Percentage of women age 15-24 years who are very or somewhat satisfied with their life overall, the average overall life satisfaction score, and percentage of women age 15-24 years who are very or somewhat happy, Serbia, 2014   Percentage of women with overall life satisfaction1 Average life satisfaction score Percentage of women who are very or somewhat happy2 Number of women age 15-24 years Total 93.1 1.6 93.6 1077 Age  15-19 96.6 1.5 96.8 515 15-17 95.7 1.5 96.0 292 18-19 97.8 1.5 97.9 223 20-24 89.9 1.7 90.6 562 Region  Belgrade 88.4 1.6 86.1 231 Vojvodina 94.4 1.5 94.9 273 Sumadija and Western Serbia 92.8 1.6 96.6 330 Southern and Eastern Serbia 96.6 1.6 95.0 242 Area  Urban 91.3 1.6 91.9 653 Other 95.9 1.5 96.1 423 Marital status  Ever married/in union 94.4 1.6 94.3 129 Never married/in union 92.9 1.6 93.5 948 Education  None (*) (*) (*) 4 Primary 92.2 1.6 90.2 56 Secondary 95.1 1.6 95.0 622 Higher 90.1 1.6 91.8 395 Wealth index quintile  Poorest 93.5 1.6 93.0 137 Second 96.9 1.6 96.9 243 Middle 89.5 1.7 91.3 249 Fourth 91.3 1.6 90.8 219 Richest 94.5 1.5 95.5 229 Ethnicity of household head  Serbian 93.0 1.6 93.6 936 Hungarian (84.9) (1.8) (100.0) 38 Bosnian (98.8) (1.3) (98.8) 22 Roma (92.1) (1.8) (85.6) 34 Other (99.3) (1.5) (88.6) 36 Does not want to declare (*) (*) (*) 9 Missing/DK (*) (*) (*) 1 1 MICS Indicator 11.1 — Life satisfaction 2 MICS indicator 11.2 — Happiness ( ) Figures that are based on 25-49 unweighted cases  (*) Figures that are based on less than 25 unweighted cases  254 Serbia Multiple Indicator Cluster Survey 2014 and Serbia Roma Settlements Multiple Indicator Cluster Survey 2014 In Table SW.3, women’s perceptions of a better life are shown. The proportion 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 is 29 percent. Differences in the perception of a better life can be observed by wealth quintiles: 37 percent of young women that live in households in the poorest wealth quintile think that their lives improved during the last one year and expect that it will get better after one year, while the corresponding proportions for young women that live in households in the richest wealth quintile is 26 percent. There is a notable difference between young women who were never married or were in union who think that their lives improved during the last one year and expect that it will get better after one year (28 percent) when compared to women that were married or are currently in union (40 percent). Percentages for young women in the Belgrade region are lower compared to the other regions. Table SW.3: Perception of a better life Percentage of women age 15-24 years who think that their lives improved during the last one year and those who expect that their lives will get better after one year, Serbia, 2014   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 Total 35.7 75.4 29.1 1077 Age  15-19 34.4 73.7 26.8 515 15-17 36.1 73.1 28.6 292 18-19 32.0 74.7 24.4 223 20-24 36.9 76.9 31.3 562 Region  Belgrade 29.7 70.5 23.1 231 Vojvodina 34.0 76.3 28.2 273 Sumadija and Western Serbia 37.2 74.7 31.1 330 Southern and Eastern Serbia 41.2 80.0 33.2 242 Area  Urban 34.0 75.1 27.5 653 Other 38.2 75.9 31.7 423 Marital status  Ever married/in union 47.8 69.7 39.8 129 Never married/in union 34.0 76.2 27.7 948 Education  None (*) (*) (*) 4 Primary 42.6 70.8 40.1 56 Secondary 34.3 76.4 27.6 622 Higher 36.7 74.4 29.8 395 Wealth index quintile  Poorest 40.2 81.0 36.5 137 Second 39.0 79.7 33.3 243 Middle 39.6 74.8 29.6 249 Fourth 29.4 73.9 22.5 219 Richest 31.0 69.5 26.1 229 Ethnicity of household head  Serbian 35.2 74.4 28.4 936 Hungarian (33.5) (79.9) (22.6) 38 Bosnian (30.4) (98.0) (29.5) 22 Roma (40.0) (80.2) (37.4) 34 Other (44.5) (77.2) (40.1) 36 Does not want to declare (*) (*) (*) 9 Missing/DK (*) (*) (*) 1 1 MICS indicator 11.3 — Perception of a better life ( ) 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 255Monitoring the situation of children and women 255 Subjective Well-being in Roma Settlements Table SW.1R shows the proportion of young women age 15-24 years from Roma settlements in Serbia, who are very or somewhat satisfied in selected domains. Note that for three domains, satisfaction with school, job and income, the denominators are confined to those young Roma women who are currently attending school, have a job, and have an income. Of the different domains, young women are the most satisfied with their family life and their health (both are 90 percent), followed by the way they look (86 percent). Among the domains, young women are the least satisfied with their current income, with 83 percent of young women not having an income at all. Only one half of young women (53 percent) are satisfied with their current income. It is notable that young women living in the poorest households are least satisfied in all selected domains, with the lowest satisfaction being with their living environment, where only about half of young women are satisfied. In Table SW.2R proportions of women age 15-24 years with overall life satisfaction are shown. “Life satisfaction” is defined as those who are very or somewhat satisfied with their life overall, and is based on a single question which was asked after the life satisfaction questions on all of the above-mentioned domains, with the exception of the question on satisfaction with income, which was asked later. In total, 82 percent of 15-24 year old women from Roma settlements are satisfied with their life overall — the figure ranges from 65 percent for women living in the poorest households to 93 percent among those living in the richest households. The proportion of young women who are satisfied with life is somewhat higher in urban areas (84 percent) than in other areas (77 percent). Younger women (age 15-19 years) seem to be more satisfied with life than those age 20-24 years (89 percent compared to 76 percent). Differences by education level can also be observed for this indicator. It ranges from 72 percent for young women with no education to 94 percent for women with secondary or higher education. As a summary measure, the average life satisfaction score is also calculated and presented in Table SW.2R. The score is simply calculated by averaging the responses to the question on overall life satisfaction, ranging from very satisfied (1) to very unsatisfied (5) (see questionnaires in Appendix F). Therefore, the lower the average scores, the higher the life satisfaction levels. As Table SW.2R indicates, the life satisfaction level is higher for young women age 15-19 compared to the older age group, 20-24 years, and among those living in urban areas compared to those living in other areas. The satisfaction level is correlated with educational background: it is highest among young women with secondary or higher education. The table also shows that 87 percent of women age 15-24 years are very or somewhat happy. When comparing 15-19 year old women to the older age group (20-24 years), the proportion of women who are very or somewhat happy is, 93 and 80 percent, respectively. The proportion of women who are very or somewhat happy is higher in urban areas (90 percent) than in other areas (78 percent). It is notable that a higher proportion of women age 15-24 years that were never married/in union and with secondary or higher education are happier than women with no education or with primary education. As for the wealth status, 95 percent of young women living in the richest households are very or somewhat happy in relation to only 74 percent of women in the poorest households. 256 Serbia Multiple Indicator Cluster Survey 2014 and Serbia Roma Settlements Multiple Indicator Cluster Survey 2014256 Serbia Multiple Indicator Cluster Survey 2014 and Serbia Roma Settlements Multiple Indicator Cluster Survey 2014 Table SW.1R: Domains of life satisfaction Percentage of women age 15-24 years who are very or somewhat satisfied in selected domains of satisfaction, Serbia Roma Settlements, 2014   Percentage of women age 15-24 years who are very or somewhat satisfied in selected domains: Percentage of women age 15-24 years who: Family life Friendships Health Living environment Treatment by others The way they look Are attending school Have a job Have an income Total 89.8 80.8 89.7 73.7 79.0 86.3 12.8 2.0 17.2 Age  15-19 93.2 83.2 92.6 77.2 84.3 89.5 23.5 1.6 19.7 15-17 91.3 83.5 94.7 77.1 83.1 90.6 29.5 1.7 14.1 18-19 95.5 82.8 90.1 77.4 85.8 88.2 16.0 1.5 26.7 20-24 86.3 78.4 86.8 70.1 73.7 83.1 2.0 2.5 14.6 Area  Urban 91.7 80.6 90.8 77.2 81.8 87.5 13.1 1.9 17.6 Other 84.0 81.5 86.5 63.0 70.7 82.9 11.9 2.4 16.0 Marital status  Ever married/in union 87.6 76.6 88.5 70.9 78.8 84.3 0.9 1.5 18.7 Never married/in union 93.6 88.2 91.8 78.4 79.4 89.9 33.4 2.9 14.5 Education  None 76.7 72.8 85.8 65.2 75.2 82.5 0.0 0.5 11.8 Primary 90.9 80.6 89.7 72.6 80.2 86.2 6.8 1.5 18.0 Secondary or higher 95.5 88.1 92.7 84.5 77.3 90.1 47.3 5.4 18.0 Wealth index quintile  Poorest 76.0 66.7 85.0 52.4 68.6 79.5 5.7 1.2 14.1 Second 86.8 81.4 89.4 70.4 78.4 86.6 13.0 2.2 13.0 Middle 95.4 88.7 91.0 80.8 86.0 88.3 15.9 2.3 16.7 Fourth 92.8 84.1 91.7 77.6 83.4 83.8 11.9 1.6 14.4 Richest 98.9 85.2 91.9 88.4 80.7 93.3 17.9 2.8 26.5 Wealth index   Poorest 60 percent 85.4 78.1 88.2 66.8 77.0 84.5 11.2 1.9 14.5 Richest 40 percent 96.1 84.7 91.8 83.5 81.9 89.0 15.2 2.3 21.0 ( ) Figures that are based on 25-49 unweighted cases (*) Figures that are based on less than 25 unweighted cases “-” Denotes 0 unweighted cases in that cell Monitoring the situation of children and women 257Monitoring the situation of children and women 257 Number of women age 15-24 years Percentage of women age 15-24 years who are very or somewhat satisfied with school Number of women age 15-24 years attending school Percentage of women age 15-24 years who are very or somewhat satisfied with their job Number of women age 15-24 years who have a job Percentage of women age 15-24 years who are very or somewhat satisfied with their income Number of women age 15-24 years who have an income 759 90.9 97 (*) 15 53.3 130 382 90.1 90 (*) 6 55.2 75 211 88.4 62 (*) 4 (*) 30 171 (*) 27 (*) 3 (68.9) 46 377 (*) 8 (*) 9 50.6 55 568 91.9 74 (*) 11 53.1 100 191 (*) 23 (*) 5 (53.9) 30 480 (*) 4 (*) 7 49.8 90 278 90.5 93 (*) 8 (61.0) 40 103 - 0 (*) 1 (*) 12 525 (84.4) 36 (*) 8 52.8 95 130 (94.7) 62 (*) 7 (*) 23 166 (*) 9 (*) 2 (29.1) 23 148 (*) 19 (*) 3 (24.9) 19 133 (*) 21 (*) 3 (49.4) 22 140 (*) 17 (*) 2 (*) 20 171 (*) 31 (*) 5 (75.5) 45 448 (85.4) 50 (*) 8 34.8 65 311 (96.7) 47 (*) 7 71.5 65 258 Serbia Multiple Indicator Cluster Survey 2014 and Serbia Roma Settlements Multiple Indicator Cluster Survey 2014258 Serbia Multiple Indicator Cluster Survey 2014 and Serbia Roma Settlements Multiple Indicator Cluster Survey 2014 Table SW.2R: Overall life satisfaction and happiness Percentage of women age 15-24 years who are very or somewhat satisfied with their life overall, the average overall life satisfaction score, and percentage of women age 15-24 years who are very or somewhat happy, Serbia Roma Settlements, 2014   Percentage of women with overall life satisfaction1 Average life satisfaction score Percentage of women who are very or somewhat happy2 Number of women age 15-24 years Total 82.4 1.7 86.7 759 Age  15-19 88.8 1.5 93.0 382 15-17 85.9 1.6 92.2 211 18-19 92.4 1.5 93.9 171 20-24 76.0 1.9 80.3 377 Area  Urban 84.4 1.7 89.5 568 Other 76.6 2.0 78.3 191 Marital status  Ever married/in union 79.9 1.8 82.4 480 Never married/in union 86.8 1.6 94.1 278 Education  None 71.8 2.0 76.8 103 Primary 81.6 1.7 86.9 525 Secondary or higher 94.3 1.5 93.7 130 Wealth index quintile  Poorest 64.8 2.2 73.5 166 Second 77.0 1.9 83.6 148 Middle 90.3 1.5 91.4 133 Fourth 88.2 1.6 91.3 140 Richest 93.3 1.5 94.7 171 Wealth index   Poorest 60 percent 76.5 1.9 82.2 448 Richest 40 percent 91.0 1.5 93.2 311 1 MICS Indicator 11.1 — Life satisfaction 2 MICS indicator 11.2 — Happiness Monitoring the situation of children and women 259Monitoring the situation of children and women 259 In Table SW.3R, the perceptions of a better life for women living in Roma settlements are shown. Overall, the proportion 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 is only 27 percent. In general, differences can be observed by area, education and household wealth status, being the most pronounced by the wealth status. Thus, 14 percent of young women that live in the poorest households think that their life improved during the last one year and expect that it will get better after one year, while the corresponding proportion for young women that live in the richest households is 41 percent. There is also a notable difference by education level of young women — ranging from 37 percent for women with secondary or higher education to 23 percent for women with no education. Table SW.3R: Perception of a better life Percentage of women age 15-24 years who think that their lives improved during the last one year and those who expect that their lives will get better after one year, Serbia Roma Settlements, 2014   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 Total 29.3 80.4 27.4 759 Age  15-19 31.2 79.1 29.3 382 15-17 25.9 76.4 23.4 211 18-19 37.6 82.6 36.6 171 20-24 27.4 81.6 25.6 377 Area  Urban 30.5 81.5 28.9 568 Other 25.8 77.1 23.0 191 Marital status  Ever married/in union 32.7 79.5 30.3 480 Never married/in union 23.4 81.9 22.5 278 Education  None 24.1 71.7 23.0 103 Primary 27.9 80.0 26.0 525 Secondary or higher 38.9 88.7 36.8 130 Wealth index quintile  Poorest 13.9 65.5 13.5 166 Second 24.2 77.4 21.7 148 Middle 23.4 79.2 21.9 133 Fourth 41.3 92.7 39.2 140 Richest 43.4 88.2 40.7 171 Wealth index  Poorest 60 percent 20.2 73.5 18.7 448 Richest 40 percent 42.4 90.2 40.0 311 1 MICS indicator 11.3 — Perception of a better life 260 Serbia Multiple Indicator Cluster Survey 2014 and Serbia Roma Settlements Multiple Indicator Cluster Survey 2014 Appendix A Sample Design The major features of the sample design are described in this appendix. Sample design features include target sample size, sample allocation, sampling frame and listing, choice of domains, sampling stages, stratification, and the calculation of sample weights. Sample Design for the 2014 Serbia MICS Sample Target Population and Survey Population The primary target population is all regular (non-institutional) households in the Republic of Serbia. Other target populations are all women 15-49 years of age and all children under 5 years of age living in non-institutional households. The survey population is identical to the target population; the survey covers all areas within the national borders. Survey Domains and Stratification The primary objective of the sample design was to produce statistically reliable estimates of most indicators, at the national level, for urban and other areas, and for the four regions of the country: Belgrade, Vojvodina, Sumadija and Western Serbia, and Southern and Eastern Serbia. Stratification was done according to type of settlement (urban and other), and 25 Areas (Belegrade, West Backa, South Banat, South Backa, North Banat, North Backa, Central Banat, Srem, Zlatibor, Kolubara, Macva, Moravica, Pomoravlje, Rasina, Raska, Sumadija, Bor, Branicevo, Zajecar, Jablanica, Nisava, Pirot, Danube, Pcinja, and Toplica). Sampling Procedure A multi-stage, stratified cluster sampling approach was used for the selection of the survey sample. A random sample of enumeration areas (cluster of households) was selected with probability proportional to size (PPS) at the first stage. A sample of households was selected in each enumeration area in the second stage. (A different procedure was used in three large enumeration areas; see the section on listing activities). The number of households selected per cluster was determined as 18 households. This decision was based on a number of considerations, including the design effect, the budget available, and the time that would be needed per team to complete one cluster. In the selected clusters a further stratification (2nd stage stratification) was done into two strata: households with children under five years of age and households without children under five. Sample Size and Sample Allocation The target sample size for the 2014 Serbia MICS was set to 7200 households and 400 enumeration areas. The sample size was determined based on a review of the 2010 Serbia MICS results along with a discussion on budget constraints. The tentatively planned sample size was further assessed by supplementary calculations using the MICS Sample Size Calculation Template. The following formula was used for the calculation: Monitoring the situation of children and women 261 where  n is the required sample size, expressed as number of households  4 is a factor to achieve the 95 percent level of confidence  r is the predicted or anticipated value of the indicator, expressed in the form of a proportion  deff is the design effect for the indicator  RME is the relative margin of error to be tolerated at the 95 percent level of confidence  pb is the proportion of the total population upon which the indicator, r, is based  AveSize is the average household size (number of persons per household)  RR is the predicted response rate factor necessary to raise the sample size for non-response An important factor which influenced the calculation of the sample size using various indicators for the children under 5, is the very low fertility rate, which increases the number of sample households considerably. A sample size of over 20000 households is needed to provide a sufficient number of children under 5 (at least 3500). Therefore, in order to reduce the number of households in the sample, but not to lose estimation reliability, the stratification of the sample into categories with and without children aged 0-4 years was done and a higher sampling rate was used for households with children. Using a hypothetical value for an indicator (r) of 0.12, and values of deff=1.5, RME=0.12, pb=0.17 (required proportion of children in sample for drawing reliable conclusions), AveSize=2.9 and RR=0.85, the required sample size was calculated as 7300 households, with about 3600 households with children under 5 (assuming one child per household). The proposed sample size of 7200 was further assessed by the calculation of expected RME for two indicators using the values of r and deff from the 2010 Serbia MICS. The parameters for the indicator “Stunting prevalence” were estimated in the 2010 Serbia MICS to be r=0.066 and deff=1.9. When pb=0.17, AveSize=2.9 and RR=0.85 then the RME becomes 0.19. This is a slightly wide RME but it can be accepted. The parameters for the indicator “Marriage before age 18” were estimated in the 2010 Serbia MICS to be r=0.077, and deff=2.2. When pb=0.23 (proportion of women in the sample based on previous rounds of the MICS survey), AveSize=2.9 and RR=0.85, then the RME becomes 0.16, which is acceptable. The target sample size in each category (households with/without children under five) was calculated according to the required number of children under 5 in the sample, as 3800 households with children under 5 (assuming one child under 5 per household) and 3400 households without children under 5. Dividing the total number of households by the number of sample households per cluster, it was calculated that 400 sample clusters needed to be selected. The final number of households in each category in the overall sample and per cluster was determined based on the number of households with children under 5 found in the listing for each enumeration area. Initially the sample was allocated proportionally to the strata based on the number of households in the strata. This allocation was then slightly adjusted. At the level of Serbia, the number of enumeration areas for the “other” domain was reduced by three enumeration areas and allocated to the urban domain. For the Belgrade region, five more enumeration areas were allocated, where the non-response rate was expected to be higher. For Southern and Eastern Serbia, the sample was increased by four enumeration areas to achieve better precision. The samples for Vojvodina and Sumadija and Western Serbia were reduced by six and three enumeration areas respectively. The table below shows the allocation of clusters to the sampling strata. 262 Serbia Multiple Indicator Cluster Survey 2014 and Serbia Roma Settlements Multiple Indicator Cluster Survey 2014 Table SD.1: Allocation of sample clusters (primary sampling units) to sampling strata Number of households (2011 Census) Number of Sample Clusters Total Urban Other Total Urban Other Total 2487885 1533920 953965 400 251 149 Area Belgrade 606433 507076 99357 103 86 17 North Backa 71416 46060 25356 11 7 4 Central Banat 68866 34949 33917 10 5 5 North Banat 56800 35705 21095 8 5 3 South Banat 101502 60391 41111 15 9 6 West Backa 68888 36824 32064 11 6 5 South Backa 223653 163221 60432 35 26 9 Srem 105031 46860 58171 16 7 9 Macva 100136 31537 68599 16 5 11 Kolubara 58973 25941 33032 9 4 5 Sumadija 97096 64278 32818 15 10 5 Pomoravlje 71478 34481 36997 11 6 5 Zlatibor 94434 48631 45803 15 8 7 Moravica 72867 39621 33246 11 6 5 Raska 90515 48584 41931 14 8 6 Rasina 77270 31127 46143 12 5 7 Danube 64155 35287 28868 11 6 5 Branicevo 59776 24736 35040 10 4 6 Bor 45970 26305 19665 8 5 3 Zajecar 42445 24003 18442 7 4 3 Nisava 128303 75512 52791 22 13 9 Toplica 31184 15029 16155 6 3 3 Pirot 34036 19686 14350 5 3 2 Jablanica 66740 29870 36870 11 5 6 Pcinja 49918 28206 21712 8 5 3 Sampling Frame and Selection of Clusters The 2011 Serbian Population Census frame was used for the selection of clusters. Census enumeration areas were defined as primary sampling units (PSUs)and were selected from each of the sampling strata by using systematic pps (probability proportional to size) sampling procedures, based on the number of households in each enumeration area from the 2011 Population Census frame. The first stage of sampling was thus completed by selecting the required number of enumeration areas from each of the 25 strata (Areas), by urban and other domains separately. Listing Activities Since the sampling frame (the 2011 Population Census) was not up-to-date, a new listing of households was conducted in all the sample enumeration areas prior to the selection of households. For this purpose, listing teams were formed who visited all of the selected enumeration areas and listed the occupied households. The Statistical Office of the Republic of Serbia was responsible for updating the household lists. Regional Offices formed the teams responsible for listing and fieldwork. For each team, an ortho-photo map, description of the enumeration area, the list of all households and vacant dwellings in the selected cluster from the 2011 Census were provided. Using the ortho- photo map, description of the enumeration area and listing, the interviewers’ task was to go to the addresses listed and to mark any changes that were found, e.g. the dwelling didn’t exist anymore, the household had moved away from the dwelling and another household was living there. The interviewers were also instructed to enumerate occupied dwellings in newly Monitoring the situation of children and women 263 built buildings after the 2011 Census in the enumeration area, and to note the number of children under five living in the household. Three enumeration areas with more than 300 households were considered to be too large for complete listing. In order to achieve good quality and reduce the required time for the listing process, only a randomly selected part (segment) of the enumeration area was subject to listing. The boundaries of the segments were defined in the field in accordance with the configuration of the field and existing address system, by dividing the enumeration area into parts/segments of approximately equal sizes (based on the estimated number of dwellings). For each enumeration area, one segment was randomly selected, and within the boundaries of the segment, all occupied households were listed. The listing process was performed during October and November 2013. Selection of Households Updated lists of households were prepared by the listing teams in the field for each sample enumeration area and sent to the Statistical Office of the Republic of Serbia. Afterwards, the updated lists of the households in the enumeration areas were classified into two 2nd stage strata (categories): households with children under 5 and households without children. A separate sample of households was selected from each stratum, using a higher sampling rate for households with children under 5. This sampling strategy increased the number of children under 5 in the sample in order to increase the precision of the indicators based on under-5 children. The number of households to be selected from each category in a sample enumeration area depends on the number of households in the area. In enumeration areas with at least 14 households with children under 5, 14 households with children under 5 were selected. In the case of clusters with less than 14 updated households with children under 5, all of these households were included in the sample. The number of households without children under 5 was obtained as the difference between the overall number of sample households per cluster (18) and the number of households with children under 5 allocated in the cluster. The households within each category were selected systematically with equal probabilities. During the data collection, another 151 households (57 with children under-5 and 94 households without children under-5) were included in the sample, in the case where interviewers identified that two households were living in the dwelling, instead of only the one listed. Calculation of Sample Weights The 2014 Serbia MICS sample is not self-weighting, due to a disproportional allocation of the sample to the strata, categories of households (with/without children under 5) and the final non-response. In order to obtain representative results for Serbia, sample weights were used. The major component of the weight is the reciprocal value of the sampling fraction employed in selecting the number of sample households in a particular sampling stratum (h), from PSU (i) within category (c): Whic is called the design weight. The term fhic, the sampling fraction for the c-th category within the i-th sample PSU in the h-th stratum, is the product of the probabilities of selection at every stage in each sampling stratum: Where pshic is the probability of selection of the sampling unit at each stage s=(1,2,3) for the sample households in category c of the i-th sample PSU in the h-th sampling stratum. 264 Serbia Multiple Indicator Cluster Survey 2014 and Serbia Roma Settlements Multiple Indicator Cluster Survey 2014 Since the estimated number of households in each enumeration area (PSU) in the sampling frame used for the first stage selection and the updated number of households in the enumeration area from the listing were different it was necessary to calculate individual overall sampling fractions for households in each sample enumeration area (cluster) by category with/ without children under 5. The sampling fractions for households in each enumeration area therefore included:  the first stage probability (p1hi) of selection of the enumeration area in sampling stratum h  the proportion (p2hi) of the listed segment in the case of segmented PSU (for non-segmented PSUs p2hi =1)  probability (p3hci) of selection of a household in the sample enumeration area (or segment) of category c (with/without children under 5). Based on the sample design, these probabilities were calculated as follows: nh = number of sample PSUs selected in stratum h Mhi = number of households in the 2011 Census frame for the i-th sample PSU in stratum h Mh = total number of households in the 2011 Census frame for stratum h p2hi = proportion of the PSU listed of the i-th sample PSU in stratum h (in the case of PSUs that were segmented); for non- segmented PSUs, p2hi = 1 M'hic = number of households of category c listed in the i-th sample PSU in stratum h mhic = number of households of category c selected in the i-th sample PSU in stratum h A second component in the calculation of sample weights takes into account the level of non-response for the household and individual interviews. The adjustment for household non-response is equal to the inverse value of: RRhc = Number of interviewed households in stratum hc / Number of selected occupied households in stratum hc After the completion of fieldwork, response rates were calculated for each sampling stratum. These were used to adjust the design weights calculated for each cluster. Response rates in the 2014 Serbia MICS are shown in Table HH.1 in this report. Similarly, the adjustment for non-response at the individual level (women and under-5 children) for each stratum is equal to the inverse value of: RRhc = Completed women’s (or under-5’s) questionnaires in stratum hc/ Eligible selected women (or under-5’s) in stratum hc The non-response adjustment factors for women's and under-5's questionnaires are applied to the adjusted household weights. The numbers of eligible selected women and under-5 children were obtained from the roster of household members in the Household Questionnaire for households where interviews were completed. Monitoring the situation of children and women 265 The household weights and individual weights were calculated by multiplying the above factors for each cluster and 2nd stage stratum (with/without children under 5). These weights were then normalized, one purpose of which is to make the weighted sum of the interviewed sample units equal the total sample size at the national level. Normalization is performed by dividing the aforementioned design weights by the average design weight at the national level. The average design weight is calculated as the sum of the design weights divided by the unweighted total. A similar procedure was followed in obtaining normalized weights for the women’s and under-5’s questionnaires. Normalized weights varied between 0.07 and 25.05 in the 400 sample enumeration areas (clusters). Sample weights were appended to all data sets and analyses were performed by weighting the data for each sample household, woman and under-5 with these sample weights. 266 Serbia Multiple Indicator Cluster Survey 2014 and Serbia Roma Settlements Multiple Indicator Cluster Survey 2014266 Serbia Multiple Indicator Cluster Survey 2014 and Serbia Roma Settlements Multiple Indicator Cluster Survey 2014 Sample Design for the 2014 Serbia Roma Settlements MICS Sample Target Population and Survey Population The primary target population is all Roma households in the Republic of Serbia. Other target populations are all women 15-49 years of age and all children under 5 years of age living in Roma households. Due to practical considerations the survey population is restricted to all Roma households living in the 2011 Census enumeration areas which had at least 18 Roma households at the time of the 2011 Census. The survey population constitutes approximately 45 percent of the target population. Survey Domains and Stratification The primary objective of the sample design for the 2014 Serbia Roma Settlements MICS was to produce statistically reliable estimates of most indicators, at the national level and for urban and other areas. Stratification for the 2014 Serbia Roma Settlements MICS was done according to the type of settlement (urban and other), and to the four regions: Belgrade, Vojvodina, Sumadija and Western Serbia and Southern and Eastern Serbia. Sampling Procedure A two-stage, stratified cluster sampling approach was used for the selection of the survey sample. A random sample of enumeration areas (cluster of households) was selected with probabilities proportional to size within each stratum at the first stage. A sample of households was selected in each enumeration area at the second stage. The number of households selected per cluster for the 2014 Serbia Roma Settlements MICS was determined as 19 households. This decision was based on a number of considerations, including the design effect, the budget available, and the time that would be needed per team to complete one cluster. In the selected clusters a further stratification (2nd stage stratification) was done into two strata: households with children under five years of age and households without children under five. Sample Size and Sample Allocation The target sample size for the 2014 Serbia Roma Settlements MICS was set to 1900 households and 100 enumeration areas. The sample size was determined based on a review of the 2010 Serbia Roma Settlements MICS results along with a discussion on budget constraints. The tentatively planned sample size was further assessed by supplementary calculations using the MICS Sample Size Calculation Template. The following formula was used for the calculation: where  n is the required sample size, expressed as number of households  4 is a factor to achieve the 95 percent level of confidence  r is the predicted or anticipated value of the indicator, expressed in the form of a proportion  deff is the design effect for the indicator  RME is the relative margin of error to be tolerated at the 95 percent level of confidence  pb is the proportion of the total population upon which the indicator, r, is based Monitoring the situation of children and women 267Monitoring the situation of children and women 267  AveSize is the average household size (number of persons per household)  RR is the predicted response rate factor necessary to raise the sample size for non-response An important factor which influenced the calculation of the sample size using various indicators for the children under 5, is the low fertility rate, which increase the number of sample households. A sample size of over 3000 households is needed to provide sufficient number of children under 5 (at least 1300). Therefore, in order to reduce the number of households in the sample, but not to lose estimation reliability, the stratification of the sample into categories with and without children aged 0-4 years was done and a higher sampling rate was used for households with children. Using a hypothetical value for an indicator (r) of 0.12, and values of deff=1.5, RME=0.19, pb=0.17 (required proportion of children in sample for drawing reliable conclusions), AveSize=4.2 and RR=0.85, the required sample size was calculated as 1900 households, with about 1400 households with children under 5 (assuming one child per household). The proposed sample size of 1900 was further assessed by the calculation of the expected RME for two indicators using the values of r and deff from the 2010 Serbia Roma Settlements MICS. The indicator “Stunting prevalence” was estimated in the 2010 Serbia Roma Settlements MICS to r=0.236 and deff=2.0. When pb=0.17, AveSize=4.2 and RR=0.85 then the RME becomes 0.15, which is acceptable. The indicator “Marriage before age 18” was estimated in the 2010 Serbia Roma Settlements MICS to r=0.162 and deff=1.5. When pb=0.26 (proportion of women in the sample based on previous rounds of MICS survey), AveSize=4.2 and RR=0.85 then the RME becomes 0.13. The target sample size in each category (households with/without children under five) was calculated according to the required number of children under 5 in the sample, determined as 1350 households with children under 5 (assuming one child under 5 per household) and 550 households without children under 5. Dividing the total number of households by the number of sample households per cluster, it was calculated that 100 sample clusters would need to be selected in the sample. The final number of households in each category in the overall sample and per cluster was determined based on the number of households with children under 5 found in the listing for each enumeration area. The allocation of the sample to the strata was not proportional to the number of Roma households. In order to produce estimates with better precision for the urban and other domains, the number of enumeration areas for the urban domain was reduced by seven and allocated to the other domain. The table below shows the allocation of clusters to the sampling strata. Table SD.1R: Allocation of sample clusters (primary sampling units) to sampling strata Number of households (2011 Census) Number of Sample Clusters Total Urban Other Total Urban Other Total 16286 11487 4799 100 64 36 Region Belgrade 3216 2766 450 22 17 5 Vojvodina 2402 1172 1230 23 11 12 Sumadija and Western Serbia 2381 1112 1269 15 7 8 Southern and Eastern Serbia 8287 6437 1850 40 29 11 268 Serbia Multiple Indicator Cluster Survey 2014 and Serbia Roma Settlements Multiple Indicator Cluster Survey 2014268 Serbia Multiple Indicator Cluster Survey 2014 and Serbia Roma Settlements Multiple Indicator Cluster Survey 2014 Sampling Frame and Selection of Clusters The frame for the 2014 Serbia Roma Settlements MICS was based on information from the 2011 Serbian Population Census. It was formed by excluding all enumeration areas with 17 or less Roma households. In this way 45 percent of the Roma households were included. The resulting frame with the number of Roma households from the 2011 Census data for each enumeration area was used for the selection of primary sampling units (PSUs). The PSUs were selected from each of the sampling strata by using a systematic pps (probability proportional to size) sampling procedure, based on the estimated number of Roma households. The first stage of sampling was thus completed by selecting the required number of enumeration areas from each of the four strata (Regions), by urban and other domains separately. Listing Activities Since the sampling frame (the 2011 Population Census) was not up-to-date, a new listing of households was conducted in all the sample enumeration areas prior to the selection of households. For this purpose, listing teams were formed who visited all of the selected enumeration areas and listed the occupied households. The Statistical Office of the Republic of Serbia was responsible for updating the household lists. Regional Offices formed the teams responsible for listing and fieldwork. For each team, an ortho-photo map, description of enumeration area, the list of all households and vacant dwellings in the selected cluster from the 2011 Census were provided. Based on the ortho- photo map, description of the enumeration area and listing, the interviewers’ task was to go to the addresses listed and to identify the current Roma households, together with the number of children under five living in the household. The listing process was performed during October and November 2013. Selection of Households Updated lists of households were prepared by the listing teams in the field for each sample enumeration area and sent to the Statistical Office of the Republic of Serbia. Afterwards, the updated lists of the households in the enumeration areas were classified into two 2nd stage strata (categories): households with children under 5 and households without children. A separate sample of households was selected from each stratum, using a higher sampling rate for households with children under 5. This sampling strategy increased the number of children under 5 in the sample in order to increase the precision of the indicators based on under-5 children. The number of households to be selected from each category in a sample enumeration area depends on the number of households in the area. In enumeration areas (clusters) with at least 16 updated households with children under 5, 16 households with children under 5 were assigned. In the case of clusters with less than 16 updated households with children under 5, all of these households were included in the sample. The number of households without children under 5 was obtained as the difference between the overall number of sample households per cluster (19) and the number of households with children under 5 allocated in the cluster. The households from both categories were selected systematically with equal probabilities. During the data collection, another 76 households (28 with children under-5 and 48 households without children under-5) were included in the sample, in the case where interviewers identified that two households were living in the dwelling, instead of only the one listed. Calculation of Sample Weights The sample for the 2014 Serbia Roma Settlements MICS is not self-weighting, due to the disproportional allocation of the sample to the strata, categories (2nd stage strata) of households (with/without children under 5) and the final non-response. In order to obtain representative results for the 2014 Serbia Roma Settlements MICS, sample weights were used. Monitoring the situation of children and women 269Monitoring the situation of children and women 269 The major component of the weight is the reciprocal value of the sampling fraction employed in selecting the number of sample households in a particular sampling stratum (h), from PSU (i) within category (c): Whic is called the design weight. The term fhic, the sampling fraction for the c-th category within the i-th sample PSU in the h-th stratum, is the product of the probabilities of selection at every stage in each sampling stratum: Where pshic is the probability of selection of the sampling unit at each stage s=(1,2) for the sample households in category c of the i-th sample PSU in the h-th sampling stratum. Since the estimated number of households in each enumeration area (PSU) in the sampling frame used for the first stage selection and the updated number of households in the enumeration area from the listing were different it was necessary to calculate individual sampling fractions for households in each sample enumeration area (cluster) by second stage stratum (with/without children under 5). The sampling fractions for households in each enumeration area (cluster) and second stage stratum therefore included: the first stage probability (p1hi) of selection of the enumeration area in sampling stratum h, and the second stage probability (p2hic) of selection of a household in category c in the sample enumeration area (cluster). Based on the sample design, these probabilities were calculated as follows: nh = number of sample PSUs selected in stratum h Mhi = number of households in the 2011 Census frame for the i-th sample PSU in stratum h Mh = total number of households in the 2011 Census frame for stratum h M’hic = number of households of category c listed in the i-th sample PSU in stratum h mhic = selected number of households of category c in the i-th sample PSU in stratum h A second component in the calculation of sample weights takes into account the level of non-response for the household and individual interviews. The adjustment for household non-response is equal to the inverse value of: RRhc = Number of interviewed households in stratum hc / Number of selected occupied households in stratum hc After the completion of fieldwork, response rates were calculated for each sampling stratum. These were used to adjust the design weights calculated for each cluster. Response rates in the 2014 Serbia Roma Settlements MICS are shown in Table HH.1R in this report. 270 Serbia Multiple Indicator Cluster Survey 2014 and Serbia Roma Settlements Multiple Indicator Cluster Survey 2014270 Serbia Multiple Indicator Cluster Survey 2014 and Serbia Roma Settlements Multiple Indicator Cluster Survey 2014 Similarly, the adjustment for non-response at the individual level (women and under-5 children) for each stratum is equal to the inverse value of: RRhc = Completed women’s (or under-5’s) questionnaires in stratum hc / Eligible selected women (or under-5’s) in stratum hc The non-response adjustment factors for women’s and under-5’s questionnaires are applied to the adjusted household weights. The numbers of eligible selected women and under-5 children were obtained from the roster of household members in the Household Questionnaire for households where interviews were completed. The household weights and individual weights were calculated by multiplying the above factors for each cluster and second stage stratum (with/without children under 5). These weights were then normalized, one purpose of which is to make the weighted sum of the interviewed sample units equal the total sample size at the national level. Normalization is performed by dividing the aforementioned design weights by the average design weight at the national level. The average design weight is calculated as the sum of the design weights divided by the unweighted total. A similar procedure was followed in obtaining normalized weights for the women’s and under-5’s questionnaires. Normalized weights varied between 0.19 and 9.69 in the 100 sample enumeration areas (clusters). Sample weights were appended to all data sets and analyses were performed by weighting the data for each sample household, woman and under-5 with these sample weights. Monitoring the situation of children and women 271 Appendix B List of Personnel Involved in the Surveys Project Director Professor Dragan Vukmirovic, PhD, Director SORS Technical Coordinator Nadezda Bogdanovic, SORS Dragana Djokovic–Papic, SORS Questionnaire Design and Survey Methodology Nadezda Bogdanovic, SORS Vesna Zajc, SORS Sofija Suvocarev, SORS Aleksandra Jovic, UNICEF Tatjana Karaulac, UNICEF Vesna Dejanovic, UNICEF Sample Design Mirjana Ogrizovic–Brasanac, SORS Data Processing Tijana Comic, SORS Vladica Jankovic, SORS Tatjana Karaulac, UNICEF Field Coordinators Dragana Djokovic–Papic, SORS Jovanka Stojanovic, SORS UNICEF Michel Saint-Lot, Representative, UNICEF, Serbia Lesley Miller, Deputy Representative, UNICEF, Serbia Aleksandra Jovic, Child Rights Monitoring Specialist, UNICEF, Serbia Tatjana Karaulac, Project Consultant, UNICEF, Serbia MICS Communication Jadranka Milanovic, Communication Officer, UNICEF, Serbia Vesna Savic–Djukic, Fundraising Officer, UNICEF, Serbia Ana Petrovic, SORS Maja Tanasic, SORS Technical Committee Jasmina Grozdanov, Dragana Jovic and Milena Kanazir, Institute of Public Health of Serbia BATUT Ivana Misic, Ministry of Health Mirjana Ognjanovic, Republic Institute for Social Protection Borislava Maksimovic, Ministry of Education, Science and Technological Development Jelena Markovic, Social Inclusion and Poverty Reduction Unit of the Deputy Prime Minister (SIPRU) Ivana Denic, Office of Human and Minority Rights Dragana Djokovic–Papic, Statistical Office of the Republic of Serbia Aleksandra Jovic and Tatjana Karaulac, UNICEF 272 Serbia Multiple Indicator Cluster Survey 2014 and Serbia Roma Settlements Multiple Indicator Cluster Survey 2014 Steering Committee Dragan Ilic, Institute for Public Health of Serbia BATUT Professor Dragan Vukmirovic, PhD, SORS Darko Laketic, Ministry of Health Muhedin Fijuljanin/Zorana Luzanin, Ministry of Education, Science and Technological Development Bozidar Dakic, Republic Institute for social protection Suzana Paunovic, Office of Human and Minority Rights Zarko Sunderic, Social Inclusion and Poverty Reduction Unit of the Government of Serbia Judita Rajhenberg/Michel Saint-Lot, UNICEF External Consultants Dragana Jovic Jelena Bekic Marko Milanovic Goranka Loncarevic Milena Kanazir Field coordinators Biljana Ilic Branko Dragisic Branko Josipovic Dragan Krstic Dragan Kuzmic Gordana Cvetinovic Jasmina Savic Ljiljana Vukovic Natasa Mijakovac Ergin Kurtesi Vukica Stojanovic Field Supervisors Dejan Kacar Dusan Vasiljevic Jelena Vasic Jelena Bojanic Jovan Todorovic Milos Djokovic Mirza Ibrakovic Nenad Levnajic Slobodan Stojanovic Uros Zivanovic Zorana Cvetkovic Zoran Todorovic Field Editors Blazenka Babic Jasmina Zivotic Jelena Culjkovic Katarina Ernjakovic Marija Jankovic Milica Stojanovic Mirjana Mihajlovic Ljiljana Vecanski Sanja Timotijevic Zorica Matejic Zorica Cacic Interviewers Andrijana Pejovic Ana Gavrilovic Biljana Mihailovic Branislava Glisovic Danijela Alimanovic Danijela Demirovic Danijela Cuk Eleonora Horvat Erika Makan Jelena Vesovic–Obradovic Jelena Umicevic Jelena Spasic Jovana Obradovic Jovana Lekic Jovana Filic Jovana Lazarevic Katarina Jonic Kristina Mitrovic Lidia Dedic Ljiljana Malinic Maja Jovanovic Marija Milovanovic Marija Nacik Marija Petrovic Marija Stojnovic Marina Pribis Melita Veselovic Milica Mutapovic Milica Petrovic Milica Stancic Mira Veselovic Mirjana Senjov Mirjana Maricic Natasa Vukoje Natasa Zivkovic Olgica Luzajic Ruzica Stojkanovic Santijana Malicevic Sanja Barac Sefera Sabanovic Slađana Timotijevic Snezana Vukomanovic Svetlana Ranisavljevic Sonja Vojnovic Tamara Divljak Tamara Popadic Tereza Nanasi Valeria Molnar Vedrana Roguljic Vinka Marinkovic Violeta Nesic Measurers Dejan Koljevic Ivan Spasic Mica Mitrovic Milan Ravas Nemanja Paripovic Nemanja Lazarevic Nikola Kovacevic Predrag Popovic Predrag Djurak Stefan Urosevic Vladan Jovic Vladica Stevanovic Data entry staff Slavica Pavkov Andjelka Vulic Borko Mandic Danica Cvetinovic Dona Djogat Jelena Stojkovic Miladinka Djuricic Milica Stosic Nikola Kriznik Vesna Radonjic Monitoring the situation of children and women 273 Appendix C Estimates of Sampling Errors Estimates of Sampling Errors for the 2014 Serbia MICS Sample The sample of respondents selected in the 2014 Serbia Multiple Indicator Cluster Survey is only one of the samples that could have been selected from the same population, using the same design and size. Each of these samples would yield results that differ somewhat from the results of the actual sample selected. Sampling errors are a measure of the variability between the estimates from all possible samples. The extent of variability is not known exactly, but can be estimated statistically from the survey data. The following sampling error measures are presented in this appendix for each of the selected indicators:  Standard error (se): Standard error is the square root of the variance of the estimate. For survey indicators that are means, proportions or ratios, the Taylor series linearization method is used for the estimation of standard errors.  Coefficient of variation (se/r) is the ratio of the standard error to the value (r) of the indicator, and is a measure of the relative sampling error.  Design effect (deff ) is the ratio of the actual variance of an indicator, under the sampling method used in the survey, to the variance calculated under the assumption of simple random sampling based on the same sample size. The square root of the design effect (deft) is used to show the efficiency of the sample design in relation to the precision. A deft value of 1.0 indicates that the sample design of the survey is as efficient as a simple random sample for a particular indicator, while a deft value above 1.0 indicates an increase in the standard error due to the use of a more complex sample design.  Confidence limits are calculated to show the interval within which the true value for the population can be reasonably assumed to fall, with a specified level of confidence. For any given statistic calculated from the survey, the value of that statistic will fall within a range of plus or minus two times the standard error (r + 2.se or r – 2.se) of the statistic in 95 percent of all possible samples of identical size and design. For the calculation of sampling errors from MICS data, programmes developed in CSPro Version 5.0 and SPSS Version 21 Complex Samples module have been used. The results are shown in the tables that follow. In addition to the sampling error measures described above, the tables also include weighted and unweighted counts of denominators for each indicator. Given the use of normalized weights, by comparing the weighted and unweighted counts it is possible to determine whether a particular domain has been under- sampled or over-sampled compared to the average sampling rate. If the weighted count is smaller than the unweighted count, this means that the particular domain had been over-sampled. As explained later in the footnote of Table SE.1, there is an exception in the case of indicators 3.15, 4.1, 4.3, 8.2 and 8.3. Sampling errors are calculated for indicators of primary interest, for the national level, for urban and other areas, and for all regions. Eight of the selected indicators are based on households members, 11 are based on women, and 14 are based on children under 5. Table SE.1 shows the list of indicators for which sampling errors are calculated, including the base population (denominator) for each indicator. Tables SE.2 to SE.10 show the calculated sampling errors for selected domains. 274 Serbia Multiple Indicator Cluster Survey 2014 and Serbia Roma Settlements Multiple Indicator Cluster Survey 2014 Table SE.1: Indicators selected for sampling error calculations, Serbia List of indicators selected for sampling error calculations, and base populations (denominators) for each indicator, Serbia, 2014 MICS5 Indicator Base Population Household members 3.15 Use of solid fuels for cooking All household membersa 4.1 Use of improved drinking water sources All household membersa 4.3 Use of improved sanitation All household membersa 7.2 School readiness (children attending first grade of primary) Children attending first grade of primary school regardless of age 7.4 Primary school net attendance ratio (adjusted) Children of primary school age (ISCED classification) 7.5 Secondary school net attendance ratio (adjusted) Children of secondary school age (ISCED classification) 8.2 Child labour Children age 5-17 yearsb 8.3 Violent discipline Children age 1-14 yearsb Women 2.6 Early initiation of breastfeeding Women with a live birth in the last 2 years 5.2 Early childbearing Women age 20-24 years 5.3 Contraceptive prevalence rate 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 (1+ times, skilled provider) Women age 15-49 years with a live birth in the last 2 years 5.5b Antenatal care coverage (4+ times, any provider) Women age 15-49 years with a live birth in the last 2 years 5.7 Skilled attendant at delivery Women age 15-49 years with a live birth in the last 2 years 5.9 Caesarean section Women age 15-49 years with a live birth in the last 2 years 7.1 Literacy rate (young women) Women age 15-24 years 8.5 Marriage before age 18 Women age 20-49 years 11.1 Life satisfaction Women age 15-24 years Under-5s 2.1a Underweight prevalence (moderate and severe) Children under age 5 years 2.1b Underweight prevalence (severe) Children under age 5 years 2.2a Stunting prevalence (moderate and severe) Children under age 5 years 2.4 Overweight prevalence Children under age 5 years 2.7 Exclusive breastfeeding under 6 months Infants under 6 months of age - Children fully vaccinated at any time before the survey Children age 24-35 monthsc - Tuberculosis immunization coverage at any time before the survey Children age 12-23 monthsc - Polio immunization coverage at any time before the survey Children age 12-23 monthsc - Diphtheria, pertussis and tetanus (DPT) immunization coverage at any time before the survey Children age 12-23 months c - Hepatitis B immunization coverage at any time before the survey Children age 12-23 monthsc - Haemophilus influenzae type B (Hib) immunization coverage at any time before the survey Children age 12-23 months c - Measles immunization coverage at any time before the survey Children age 24-35 monthsc 6.1 Attendance to early childhood education Children age 36-59 months 6.8 Early child development index Children age 36-59 months a To calculate the weighted results of MICS Indicators 3.15, 4.1 and 4.3, the household weight is multiplied by the number of household members in each household. Therefore the unweighted base population presented in the SE tables reflects the unweighted number of households, whereas the weighted numbers reflect the household population. b Random selection of one child age 1-17 years per household is carried out during fieldwork for administering the child labour and/or child discipline modules. The child labour module is administered for children age 5-17 from among those randomly selected, while violent discipline module is administered for children age 1-14. To account for the random selection and calculate MICS Indicators 8.2 and 8.3, the household sample weight is multiplied by the total number of children in the age range in each household. Therefore the unweighted base population presented in the SE tables reflects the unweighted number of households with children in the age range, whereas the weighted numbers reflect the number of children in the age range. c Due to the way missing values are treated, the weighted count in the SE tables for immunization is different from the number in Table CH.1. Monitoring the situation of children and women 275 Table SE.2: Sampling errors: Total sample Standard errors, coefficients of variation, design effects (deff), square root of design effects (deft), and confidence intervals for selected indicators, Serbia, 2014   MICS Indicator MDG Indicator Value (r) Standard error (se) Coefficient of variation (se/r) Design effect (deff) Square root of design effect (deft) Weighted count Unweighted count Confidence limits Lower bound r – 2se Upper bound r + 2se Household members Use of solid fuels for cooking 3.15 0.3425 0.0102 0.030 2.846 1.687 19212 6191 0.322 0.363 Use of improved drinking water sources 4.1 7.8 0.9950 0.0011 0.001 1.636 1.279 19212 6191 0.993 0.997 Use of improved sanitation 4.3 7.9 0.9690 0.0036 0.004 2.669 1.634 19212 6191 0.962 0.976 School readiness (children attending first grade of primary) 7.2 0.9811 0.0056 0.006 0.536 0.732 217 316 0.970 0.992 Primary school net attendance ratio (adjusted) 7.4 2.1 0.9882 0.0051 0.005 2.341 1.530 766 1045 0.978 0.998 Secondary school net attendance ratio (adjusted) 7.5 0.9354 0.0084 0.009 1.770 1.330 1705 1500 0.919 0.952 Child labour 8.2 0.0949 0.0091 0.096 2.568 1.602 4168 1628 0.077 0.113 Violent discipline 8.3 0.4310 0.0171 0.040 9.119 3.020 4313 2755 0.397 0.465 Women  Early initiation of breastfeeding 2.6 0.5076 0.0273 0.054 2.856 1.690 384 959 0.453 0.562 Early childbearing 5.2 0.0137 0.0027 0.199 0.270 0.519 562 489 0.008 0.019 Contraceptive prevalence rate 5.3 5.3 0.5840 0.0132 0.023 2.458 1.568 2846 3436 0.558 0.610 Unmet need 5.4 5.6 0.1494 0.0090 0.060 2.197 1.482 2846 3436 0.131 0.167 Antenatal care coverage (1+ times, skilled provider) 5.5a 5.5 0.9834 0.0108 0.011 6.890 2.625 384 959 0.962 1.000 Antenatal care coverage (4+ times, any provider) 5.5b 5.5 0.9394 0.0142 0.015 3.384 1.839 384 959 0.911 0.968 Skilled attendant at delivery 5.7 5.2 0.9841 0.0109 0.011 7.236 2.690 384 959 0.962 1.000 Caesarean section 5.9 0.2880 0.0240 0.083 2.681 1.637 384 959 0.240 0.336 Literacy rate (young women) 7.1 2.3 0.9915 0.0033 0.003 1.159 1.077 1077 877 0.985 0.998 Marriage before age 18 8.5 0.0680 0.0053 0.078 1.911 1.382 4198 4325 0.057 0.079 Life satisfaction 11.1 0.9311 0.0116 0.012 1.834 1.354 1077 877 0.908 0.954 Under-5s  Underweight prevalence (moderate and severe) 2.1a 1.8 0.0178 0.0044 0.246 2.666 1.633 2353 2423 0.009 0.027 Underweight prevalence (severe) 2.1b 1.8 0.0016 0.0007 0.456 0.825 0.908 2353 2423 0.000 0.003 Stunting prevalence (moderate and severe) 2.2a 0.0598 0.0088 0.147 3.322 1.823 2337 2404 0.042 0.077 Overweight prevalence 2.4 0.1388 0.0150 0.108 4.426 2.104 2270 2364 0.109 0.169 Exclusive breastfeeding under 6 months 2.7 0.1284 0.0132 0.103 0.263 0.513 321 169 0.102 0.155 Children fully vaccinated at any time before the survey - 0.8056 0.0213 0.026 1.535 1.239 457 533 0.763 0.848 Tuberculosis immunization coverage at any time before the survey - 0.9797 0.0082 0.008 1.752 1.324 487 522 0.963 0.996 Polio immunization coverage at any time before the survey - 0.8842 0.0198 0.022 1.979 1.407 486 520 0.845 0.924 Diphtheria, pertussis and tetanus (DPT) immunization coverage at any time before the survey - 0.8901 0.0195 0.022 2.017 1.420 485 518 0.851 0.929 Hepatitis B immunization coverage at any time before the survey - 0.9317 0.0170 0.018 2.340 1.530 483 517 0.898 0.966 Haemophilus influenzae type B (Hib) immunization coverage at any time before the survey - 0.8270 0.0219 0.026 1.725 1.313 485 517 0.783 0.871 Measles immunization coverage at any time before the survey - 0.9442 0.0106 0.011 1.123 1.060 454 529 0.923 0.965 Attendance to early childhood education 6.1 0.5024 0.0331 0.066 5.297 2.301 1200 1211 0.436 0.569 Early child development index 6.8 0.9510 0.0086 0.009 1.927 1.388 1200 1211 0.934 0.968 276 Serbia Multiple Indicator Cluster Survey 2014 and Serbia Roma Settlements Multiple Indicator Cluster Survey 2014 Table SE.3: Sampling errors: Urban Standard errors, coefficients of variation, design effects (deff), square root of design effects (deft), and confidence intervals for selected indicators, Serbia, 2014   MICS Indicator MDG Indicator Value (r) Standard error (se) Coefficient of variation (se/r) Design effect (deff) Square root of design effect (deft) Weighted count Unweighted count Confidence limits Lower bound r – 2se Upper bound r + 2se Household members                       Use of solid fuels for cooking 3.15 0.1746 0.0134 0.077 4.623 2.150 11345 3702 0.148 0.201 Use of improved drinking water sources 4.1 7.8 0.9989 0.0008 0.001 2.177 1.476 11345 3702 0.997 1.000 Use of improved sanitation 4.3 7.9 0.9884 0.0032 0.003 3.372 1.836 11345 3702 0.982 0.995 School readiness (children attending first grade of primary) 7.2 0.9826 0.0054 0.005 0.298 0.546 137 179 0.972 0.993 Primary school net attendance ratio (adjusted) 7.4 2.1 0.9957 0.0027 0.003 1.012 1.006 466 596 0.990 1.000 Secondary school net attendance ratio (adjusted) 7.5 0.9476 0.0112 0.012 2.085 1.444 979 830 0.925 0.970 Child labour 8.2 0.0480 0.0087 0.181 2.481 1.575 2437 931 0.031 0.065 Violent discipline 8.3 0.4571 0.0220 0.048 9.778 3.127 2573 1702 0.413 0.501 Women Early initiation of breastfeeding 2.6 0.5200 0.0370 0.071 3.281 1.811 229 600 0.446 0.594 Early childbearing 5.2 0.0111 0.0028 0.248 0.184 0.429 353 267 0.006 0.017 Contraceptive prevalence rate 5.3 5.3 0.5806 0.0182 0.031 2.749 1.658 1651 2028 0.544 0.617 Unmet need 5.4 5.6 0.1483 0.0128 0.086 2.628 1.621 1651 2028 0.123 0.174 Antenatal care coverage (1+ times, skilled provider) 5.5a 5.5 0.9750 0.0179 0.018 7.915 2.813 229 600 0.939 1.000 Antenatal care coverage (4+ times, any provider) 5.5b 5.5 0.9384 0.0209 0.022 4.535 2.130 229 600 0.896 0.980 Skilled attendant at delivery 5.7 5.2 0.9791 0.0179 0.018 9.324 3.053 229 600 0.943 1.000 Caesarean section 5.9 0.2942 0.0340 0.115 3.329 1.825 229 600 0.226 0.362 Literacy rate (young women) 7.1 2.3 0.9919 0.0045 0.004 1.179 1.086 653 476 0.983 1.000 Marriage before age 18 8.5 0.0473 0.0065 0.138 2.483 1.576 2569 2622 0.034 0.060 Life satisfaction 11.1 0.9128 0.0173 0.019 1.786 1.336 653 476 0.878 0.947 Under-5s Underweight prevalence (moderate and severe) 2.1a 1.8 0.0232 0.0068 0.293 3.027 1.740 1450 1489 0.010 0.037 Underweight prevalence (severe) 2.1b 1.8 0.0027 0.0012 0.456 0.823 0.907 1450 1489 0.000 0.005 Stunting prevalence (moderate and severe) 2.2a 0.0647 0.0125 0.193 3.785 1.946 1440 1476 0.040 0.090 Overweight prevalence 2.4 0.1430 0.0212 0.148 5.315 2.305 1388 1452 0.101 0.185 Exclusive breastfeeding under 6 months 2.7 0.1827 0.0229 0.126 0.391 0.625 213 112 0.137 0.229 Children fully vaccinated at any time before the survey - 0.8366 0.0220 0.026 1.173 1.083 285 331 0.792 0.881 Tuberculosis immunization coverage at any time before the survey - 0.9904 0.0038 0.004 0.496 0.704 298 333 0.983 0.998 Polio immunization coverage at any time before the survey - 0.8852 0.0237 0.027 1.831 1.353 297 332 0.838 0.933 Diphtheria, pertussis and tetanus (DPT) immunization coverage at any time before the survey - 0.8885 0.0237 0.027 1.865 1.366 296 330 0.841 0.936 Hepatitis B immunization coverage at any time before the survey - 0.9513 0.0104 0.011 0.764 0.874 296 331 0.931 0.972 Haemophilus influenzae type B (Hib) immunization coverage at any time before the survey - 0.8418 0.0247 0.029 1.512 1.230 296 330 0.792 0.891 Measles immunization coverage at any time before the survey - 0.9420 0.0122 0.013 0.893 0.945 283 327 0.918 0.966 Attendance to early childhood education 6.1 0.6262 0.0416 0.066 5.681 2.383 780 768 0.543 0.709 Early child development index 6.8 0.9676 0.0077 0.008 1.463 1.210 780 768 0.952 0.983 Monitoring the situation of children and women 277 Table SE.4: Sampling errors: Other Standard errors, coefficients of variation, design effects (deff), square root of design effects (deft), and confidence intervals for selected indicators, Serbia, 2014   MICS Indicator MDG Indicator Value (r) Standard error (se) Coefficient of variation (se/r) Design effect (deff) Square root of design effect (deft) Weighted count Unweighted count Confidence limits Lower bound r – 2se Upper bound r + 2se Household members Use of solid fuels for cooking 3.15 0.5846 0.0153 0.026 2.404 1.551 7867 2489 0.554 0.615 Use of improved drinking water sources 4.1 7.8 0.9894 0.0026 0.003 1.554 1.246 7867 2489 0.984 0.995 Use of improved sanitation 4.3 7.9 0.9411 0.0075 0.008 2.514 1.586 7867 2489 0.926 0.956 School readiness (children attending first grade of primary) 7.2 0.9786 0.0122 0.012 0.962 0.981 81 137 0.954 1.000 Primary school net attendance ratio (adjusted) 7.4 2.1 0.9766 0.0118 0.012 2.729 1.652 300 449 0.953 1.000 Secondary school net attendance ratio (adjusted) 7.5 0.9190 0.0128 0.014 1.462 1.209 726 670 0.893 0.944 Child labour 8.2 0.1616 0.0182 0.112 2.837 1.684 1732 697 0.125 0.198 Violent discipline 8.3 0.3920 0.0261 0.067 7.603 2.757 1740 1053 0.340 0.444 Women Early initiation of breastfeeding 2.6 0.4892 0.0407 0.083 2.376 1.541 155 359 0.408 0.571 Early childbearing 5.2 0.0181 0.0055 0.307 0.383 0.619 209 222 0.007 0.029 Contraceptive prevalence rate 5.3 5.3 0.5887 0.0188 0.032 2.060 1.435 1195 1408 0.551 0.626 Unmet need 5.4 5.6 0.1510 0.0122 0.081 1.631 1.277 1195 1408 0.127 0.175 Antenatal care coverage (1+ times, skilled provider) 5.5a 5.5 0.9958 0.0025 0.003 0.530 0.728 155 359 0.991 1.000 Antenatal care coverage (4+ times, any provider) 5.5b 5.5 0.9410 0.0166 0.018 1.777 1.333 155 359 0.908 0.974 Skilled attendant at delivery 5.7 5.2 0.9917 0.0043 0.004 0.804 0.896 155 359 0.983 1.000 Caesarean section 5.9 0.2787 0.0315 0.113 1.761 1.327 155 359 0.216 0.342 Literacy rate (young women) 7.1 2.3 0.9907 0.0050 0.005 1.098 1.048 423 401 0.981 1.000 Marriage before age 18 8.5 0.1005 0.0090 0.090 1.534 1.238 1629 1703 0.082 0.119 Life satisfaction 11.1 0.9594 0.0107 0.011 1.173 1.083 423 401 0.938 0.981 Under-5s Underweight prevalence (moderate and severe) 2.1a 1.8 0.0092 0.0034 0.365 1.160 1.077 903 934 0.002 0.016 Underweight prevalence (severe) 2.1b 1.8 0.0000 0.0000 0.000 na na 903 934 0.000 0.000 Stunting prevalence (moderate and severe) 2.2a 0.0520 0.0111 0.214 2.319 1.523 897 928 0.030 0.074 Overweight prevalence 2.4 0.1322 0.0191 0.144 2.892 1.701 882 912 0.094 0.170 Exclusive breastfeeding under 6 months 2.7 0.0219 0.0141 0.646 0.523 0.723 108 57 0.000 0.050 Children fully vaccinated at any time before the survey - 0.7541 0.0395 0.052 1.695 1.302 172 202 0.675 0.833 Tuberculosis immunization coverage at any time before the survey - 0.9630 0.0200 0.021 2.116 1.455 190 189 0.923 1.000 Polio immunization coverage at any time before the survey - 0.8825 0.0345 0.039 2.152 1.467 189 188 0.813 0.952 Diphtheria, pertussis and tetanus (DPT) immunization coverage at any time before the survey - 0.8927 0.0337 0.038 2.220 1.490 189 188 0.825 0.960 Hepatitis B immunization coverage at any time before the survey - 0.9005 0.0393 0.044 3.192 1.787 187 186 0.822 0.979 Haemophilus influenzae type B (Hib) immunization coverage at any time before the survey - 0.8037 0.0403 0.050 1.918 1.385 189 187 0.723 0.884 Measles immunization coverage at any time before the survey - 0.9478 0.0195 0.021 1.553 1.246 171 202 0.909 0.987 Attendance to early childhood education 6.1 0.2731 0.0275 0.101 1.687 1.299 421 443 0.218 0.328 Early child development index 6.8 0.9202 0.0192 0.021 2.209 1.486 421 443 0.882 0.959 na: not applicable 278 Serbia Multiple Indicator Cluster Survey 2014 and Serbia Roma Settlements Multiple Indicator Cluster Survey 2014 Table SE.5: Sampling errors: Belgrade Standard errors, coefficients of variation, design effects (deff), square root of design effects (deft), and confidence intervals for selected indicators, Serbia, 2014   MICS Indicator MDG Indicator Value (r) Standard error (se) Coefficient of variation (se/r) Design effect (deff) Square root of design effect (deft) Weighted count Unweighted count Confidence limits Lower bound r – 2se Upper bound r + 2se Household members Use of solid fuels for cooking 3.15 0.0989 0.0159 0.160 3.718 1.928 4345 1317 0.067 0.131 Use of improved drinking water sources 4.1 7.8 0.9997 0.0003 0.000 0.338 0.582 4345 1317 0.999 1.000 Use of improved sanitation 4.3 7.9 0.9887 0.0047 0.005 2.645 1.626 4345 1317 0.979 0.998 School readiness (children attending first grade of primary) 7.2 0.9891 0.0098 0.010 0.518 0.720 45 59 0.970 1.000 Primary school net attendance ratio (adjusted) 7.4 2.1 0.9921 0.0065 0.007 1.080 1.039 159 200 0.979 1.000 Secondary school net attendance ratio (adjusted) 7.5 0.9231 0.0238 0.026 2.066 1.437 320 260 0.876 0.971 Child labour 8.2 0.0623 0.0200 0.322 3.494 1.869 803 312 0.022 0.102 Violent discipline 8.3 0.3997 0.0407 0.102 13.163 3.628 918 620 0.318 0.481 Women Early initiation of breastfeeding 2.6 0.5372 0.0674 0.125 3.928 1.982 91 216 0.402 0.672 Early childbearing 5.2 0.0022 0.0022 1.012 0.197 0.443 138 90 0.000 0.007 Contraceptive prevalence rate 5.3 5.3 0.4449 0.0300 0.068 2.595 1.611 601 711 0.385 0.505 Unmet need 5.4 5.6 0.2224 0.0255 0.115 2.679 1.637 601 711 0.171 0.273 Antenatal care coverage (1+ times, skilled provider) 5.5a 5.5 0.9468 0.0438 0.046 8.178 2.860 91 216 0.859 1.000 Antenatal care coverage (4+ times, any provider) 5.5b 5.5 0.9188 0.0431 0.047 5.343 2.311 91 216 0.833 1.000 Skilled attendant at delivery 5.7 5.2 0.9454 0.0437 0.046 7.965 2.822 91 216 0.858 1.000 Caesarean section 5.9 0.2456 0.0616 0.251 4.405 2.099 91 216 0.122 0.369 Literacy rate (young women) 7.1 2.3 0.9968 0.0017 0.002 0.145 0.381 231 152 0.993 1.000 Marriage before age 18 8.5 0.0282 0.0096 0.343 3.270 1.808 1012 963 0.009 0.047 Life satisfaction 11.1 0.8842 0.0407 0.046 2.442 1.563 231 152 0.803 0.966 Under-5s Underweight prevalence (moderate and severe) 2.1a 1.8 0.0188 0.0059 0.316 0.922 0.960 489 483 0.007 0.031 Underweight prevalence (severe) 2.1b 1.8 0.0012 0.0012 0.974 0.563 0.751 489 483 0.000 0.004 Stunting prevalence (moderate and severe) 2.2a 0.0419 0.0108 0.257 1.365 1.168 482 473 0.020 0.063 Overweight prevalence 2.4 0.1358 0.0339 0.250 4.495 2.120 438 460 0.068 0.204 Exclusive breastfeeding under 6 months 2.7 (0.3233) (0.0124) (0.038) (0.027) (0.163) 67 39 (0.299) (0.348) Children fully vaccinated at any time before the survey - 0.6790 0.0625 0.092 2.113 1.454 109 119 0.554 0.804 Tuberculosis immunization coverage at any time before the survey - 0.9464 0.0303 0.032 2.249 1.500 111 125 0.886 1.000 Polio immunization coverage at any time before the survey - 0.7110 0.0625 0.088 2.355 1.534 111 125 0.586 0.836 Diphtheria, pertussis and tetanus (DPT) immunization coverage at any time before the survey - 0.7152 0.0631 0.088 2.402 1.550 110 124 0.589 0.841 Hepatitis B immunization coverage at any time before the survey - 0.8895 0.0598 0.067 4.438 2.107 110 123 0.770 1.000 Haemophilus influenzae type B (Hib) immunization coverage at any time before the survey - 0.6939 0.0632 0.091 2.293 1.514 110 123 0.568 0.820 Measles immunization coverage at any time before the survey - 0.9575 0.0123 0.013 0.432 0.658 109 118 0.933 0.982 Attendance to early childhood education 6.1 0.7221 0.0635 0.088 6.054 2.460 386 302 0.595 0.849 Early child development index 6.8 0.9534 0.0166 0.017 1.872 1.368 386 302 0.920 0.987 ( ) Figures that are based on 25-49 unweighted cases Monitoring the situation of children and women 279 Table SE.6: Sampling errors: Vojvodina Standard errors, coefficients of variation, design effects (deff), square root of design effects (deft), and confidence intervals for selected indicators, Serbia, 2014   MICS Indicator MDG Indicator Value (r) Standard error (se) Coefficient of variation (se/r) Design effect (deff) Square root of design effect (deft) Weighted count Unweighted count Confidence limits Lower bound r – 2se Upper bound r + 2se Household members Use of solid fuels for cooking 3.15 0.1523 0.0153 0.100 3.068 1.752 5113 1701 0.122 0.183 Use of improved drinking water sources 4.1 7.8 0.9957 0.0025 0.002 2.435 1.561 5113 1701 0.991 1.000 Use of improved sanitation 4.3 7.9 0.9900 0.0035 0.004 2.106 1.451 5113 1701 0.983 0.997 School readiness (children attending first grade of primary) 7.2 0.9822 0.0098 0.010 0.525 0.725 69 96 0.963 1.000 Primary school net attendance ratio (adjusted) 7.4 2.1 0.9827 0.0055 0.006 0.550 0.742 234 311 0.972 0.994 Secondary school net attendance ratio (adjusted) 7.5 0.9329 0.0198 0.021 2.578 1.606 438 411 0.893 0.973 Child labour 8.2 0.0847 0.0130 0.153 1.544 1.243 1168 443 0.059 0.111 Violent discipline 8.3 0.4710 0.0262 0.056 5.023 2.241 1199 724 0.419 0.523 Women Early initiation of breastfeeding 2.6 0.6283 0.0518 0.083 2.969 1.723 112 259 0.525 0.732 Early childbearing 5.2 0.0269 0.0062 0.229 0.172 0.415 141 120 0.015 0.039 Contraceptive prevalence rate 5.3 5.3 0.5738 0.0234 0.041 2.009 1.417 765 902 0.527 0.621 Unmet need 5.4 5.6 0.1176 0.0141 0.120 1.738 1.318 765 902 0.089 0.146 Antenatal care coverage (1+ times, skilled provider) 5.5a 5.5 0.9915 0.0044 0.004 0.590 0.768 112 259 0.983 1.000 Antenatal care coverage (4+ times, any provider) 5.5b 5.5 0.9439 0.0233 0.025 2.634 1.623 112 259 0.897 0.990 Skilled attendant at delivery 5.7 5.2 0.9912 0.0053 0.005 0.827 0.909 112 259 0.981 1.000 Caesarean section 5.9 0.2557 0.0467 0.183 2.959 1.720 112 259 0.162 0.349 Literacy rate (young women) 7.1 2.3 0.9708 0.0130 0.013 1.371 1.171 273 232 0.945 0.997 Marriage before age 18 8.5 0.0716 0.0099 0.139 1.672 1.293 1106 1129 0.052 0.091 Life satisfaction 11.1 0.9436 0.0165 0.018 1.188 1.090 273 232 0.910 0.977 Under-5s Underweight prevalence (moderate and severe) 2.1a 1.8 0.0359 0.0134 0.374 3.518 1.876 709 675 0.009 0.063 Underweight prevalence (severe) 2.1b 1.8 0.0033 0.0020 0.590 0.789 0.888 709 675 0.000 0.007 Stunting prevalence (moderate and severe) 2.2a 0.0876 0.0224 0.256 4.221 2.055 706 672 0.043 0.133 Overweight prevalence 2.4 0.1224 0.0360 0.294 8.073 2.841 703 669 0.050 0.194 Exclusive breastfeeding under 6 months 2.7 (0.1112) (0.0256) (0.230) (0.318) (0.564) 124 49 (0.060) (0.162) Children fully vaccinated at any time before the survey - 0.9095 0.0183 0.020 0.612 0.782 137 152 0.873 0.946 Tuberculosis immunization coverage at any time before the survey - 0.9958 0.0044 0.004 0.628 0.792 141 138 0.987 1.000 Polio immunization coverage at any time before the survey - 0.9383 0.0176 0.019 0.724 0.851 140 136 0.903 0.974 Diphtheria, pertussis and tetanus (DPT) immunization coverage at any time before the survey - 0.9445 0.0160 0.017 0.662 0.814 140 136 0.912 0.977 Hepatitis B immunization coverage at any time before the survey - 0.9405 0.0285 0.030 1.956 1.398 140 136 0.884 0.997 Haemophilus influenzae type B (Hib) immunization coverage at any time before the survey - 0.8951 0.0277 0.031 1.106 1.052 140 136 0.840 0.951 Measles immunization coverage at any time before the survey - 0.9460 0.0159 0.017 0.741 0.861 135 150 0.914 0.978 Attendance to early childhood education 6.1 0.4741 0.0430 0.091 2.301 1.517 283 311 0.388 0.560 Early child development index 6.8 0.9284 0.0191 0.021 1.708 1.307 283 311 0.890 0.967 ( ) Figures that are based on 25-49 unweighted cases 280 Serbia Multiple Indicator Cluster Survey 2014 and Serbia Roma Settlements Multiple Indicator Cluster Survey 2014 Table SE.7: Sampling errors: Sumadija and Western Serbia Standard errors, coefficients of variation, design effects (deff), square root of design effects (deft), and confidence intervals for selected indicators, Serbia, 2014   MICS Indicator MDG Indicator Value (r) Standard error (se) Coefficient of variation (se/r) Design effect (deff) Square root of design effect (deft) Weighted count Unweighted count Confidence limits Lower bound r – 2se Upper bound r + 2se Household members Use of solid fuels for cooking 3.15 0.5408 0.0225 0.042 3.485 1.867 5284 1704 0.496 0.586 Use of improved drinking water sources 4.1 7.8 0.9918 0.0028 0.003 1.706 1.306 5284 1704 0.986 0.998 Use of improved sanitation 4.3 7.9 0.9442 0.0103 0.011 3.403 1.845 5284 1704 0.924 0.965 School readiness (children attending first grade of primary) 7.2 0.9763 0.0023 0.002 0.021 0.144 54 89 0.972 0.981 Primary school net attendance ratio (adjusted) 7.4 2.1 0.9826 0.0164 0.017 4.837 2.199 213 311 0.950 1.000 Secondary school net attendance ratio (adjusted) 7.5 0.9215 0.0144 0.016 1.241 1.114 501 436 0.893 0.950 Child labour 8.2 0.1174 0.0186 0.159 2.631 1.622 1208 477 0.080 0.155 Violent discipline 8.3 0.4072 0.0382 0.094 12.094 3.478 1226 760 0.331 0.484 Women Early initiation of breastfeeding 2.6 0.4159 0.0416 0.100 1.895 1.377 102 267 0.333 0.499 Early childbearing 5.2 0.0143 0.0059 0.410 0.401 0.633 187 165 0.003 0.026 Contraceptive prevalence rate 5.3 5.3 0.5922 0.0224 0.038 2.066 1.437 800 992 0.547 0.637 Unmet need 5.4 5.6 0.1751 0.0182 0.104 2.281 1.510 800 992 0.139 0.212 Antenatal care coverage (1+ times, skilled provider) 5.5a 5.5 0.9973 0.0027 0.003 0.712 0.844 102 267 0.992 1.000 Antenatal care coverage (4+ times, any provider) 5.5b 5.5 0.9442 0.0188 0.020 1.774 1.332 102 267 0.907 0.982 Skilled attendant at delivery 5.7 5.2 1.0000 0.0000 0.000 na na 102 267 1.000 1.000 Caesarean section 5.9 0.3711 0.0381 0.103 1.655 1.287 102 267 0.295 0.447 Literacy rate (young women) 7.1 2.3 0.9991 0.0009 0.001 0.250 0.500 330 282 0.997 1.000 Marriage before age 18 8.5 0.0781 0.0111 0.142 2.081 1.443 1150 1219 0.056 0.100 Life satisfaction 11.1 0.9278 0.0111 0.012 0.518 0.720 330 282 0.906 0.950 Under-5s Underweight prevalence (moderate and severe) 2.1a 1.8 0.0052 0.0026 0.500 0.901 0.949 655 693 0.000 0.010 Underweight prevalence (severe) 2.1b 1.8 0.0013 0.0013 1.007 0.937 0.968 655 693 0.000 0.004 Stunting prevalence (moderate and severe) 2.2a 0.0569 0.0139 0.244 2.481 1.575 652 689 0.029 0.085 Overweight prevalence 2.4 0.1583 0.0222 0.140 2.475 1.573 637 673 0.114 0.203 Exclusive breastfeeding under 6 months 2.7 (0.1122) (0.0148) (0.132) (0.077) (0.277) 46 36 (0.083) (0.142) Children fully vaccinated at any time before the survey - 0.8449 0.0435 0.052 2.081 1.443 122 145 0.758 0.932 Tuberculosis immunization coverage at any time before the survey - 0.9906 0.0093 0.009 1.304 1.142 151 140 0.972 1.000 Polio immunization coverage at any time before the survey - 0.9344 0.0194 0.021 0.851 0.922 151 140 0.896 0.973 Diphtheria, pertussis and tetanus (DPT) immunization coverage at any time before the survey - 0.9414 0.0176 0.019 0.779 0.883 151 140 0.906 0.977 Hepatitis B immunization coverage at any time before the survey - 0.9590 0.0141 0.015 0.697 0.835 149 139 0.931 0.987 Haemophilus influenzae type B (Hib) immunization coverage at any time before the survey - 0.8438 0.0296 0.035 0.926 0.962 151 140 0.785 0.903 Measles immunization coverage at any time before the survey - 0.9922 0.0078 0.008 1.140 1.068 121 144 0.977 1.000 Attendance to early childhood education 6.1 0.3592 0.0341 0.095 1.669 1.292 309 332 0.291 0.427 Early child development index 6.8 0.9557 0.0179 0.019 2.513 1.585 309 332 0.920 0.992 ( ) Figures that are based on 25-49 unweighted cases na: not applicable Monitoring the situation of children and women 281 Table SE.8: Sampling errors: Southern and Eastern Serbia Standard errors, coefficients of variation, design effects (deff), square root of design effects (deft), and confidence intervals for selected indicators, Serbia, 2014   MICS Indicator MDG Indicator Value (r) Standard error (se) Coefficient of variation (se/r) Design effect (deff) Square root of design effect (deft) Weighted count Unweighted count Confidence limits Lower bound r – 2se Upper bound r + 2se Household members Use of solid fuels for cooking 3.15 0.5624 0.0243 0.043 3.536 1.881 4470 1469 0.514 0.611 Use of improved drinking water sources 4.1 7.8 0.9935 0.0022 0.002 1.078 1.038 4470 1469 0.989 0.998 Use of improved sanitation 4.3 7.9 0.9552 0.0078 0.008 2.066 1.438 4470 1469 0.940 0.971 School readiness (children attending first grade of primary) 7.2 0.9774 0.0190 0.019 1.163 1.078 49 72 0.939 1.000 Primary school net attendance ratio (adjusted) 7.4 2.1 1.0000 0.0000 0.000 na na 160 223 1.000 1.000 Secondary school net attendance ratio (adjusted) 7.5 0.9623 0.0095 0.010 0.982 0.991 447 393 0.943 0.981 Child labour 8.2 0.1063 0.0216 0.204 3.247 1.802 990 396 0.063 0.150 Violent discipline 8.3 0.4422 0.0290 0.065 6.716 2.592 970 651 0.384 0.500 Women Early initiation of breastfeeding 2.6 0.4199 0.0610 0.145 3.294 1.815 78 217 0.298 0.542 Early childbearing 5.2 0.0096 0.0047 0.491 0.264 0.514 96 114 0.000 0.019 Contraceptive prevalence rate 5.3 5.3 0.7085 0.0270 0.038 2.920 1.709 681 831 0.655 0.762 Unmet need 5.4 5.6 0.0907 0.0127 0.140 1.627 1.276 681 831 0.065 0.116 Antenatal care coverage (1+ times, skilled provider) 5.5a 5.5 0.9960 0.0029 0.003 0.468 0.684 78 217 0.990 1.000 Antenatal care coverage (4+ times, any provider) 5.5b 5.5 0.9507 0.0231 0.024 2.453 1.566 78 217 0.905 0.997 Skilled attendant at delivery 5.7 5.2 0.9982 0.0019 0.002 0.418 0.646 78 217 0.994 1.000 Caesarean section 5.9 0.2749 0.0443 0.161 2.130 1.460 78 217 0.186 0.364 Literacy rate (young women) 7.1 2.3 0.9991 0.0008 0.001 0.177 0.421 242 211 0.997 1.000 Marriage before age 18 8.5 0.0943 0.0114 0.120 1.531 1.237 931 1014 0.072 0.117 Life satisfaction 11.1 0.9664 0.0155 0.016 1.552 1.246 242 211 0.935 0.997 Under-5s Underweight prevalence (moderate and severe) 2.1a 1.8 0.0078 0.0036 0.461 0.948 0.974 499 572 0.001 0.015 Underweight prevalence (severe) 2.1b 1.8 0.0000 0.0000 0.000 na na 499 572 0.000 0.000 Stunting prevalence (moderate and severe) 2.2a 0.0415 0.0132 0.317 2.484 1.576 497 570 0.015 0.068 Overweight prevalence 2.4 0.1398 0.0221 0.158 2.278 1.509 492 562 0.096 0.184 Exclusive breastfeeding under 6 months 2.7 (0.0089) (0.0020) (0.220) (0.019) (0.138) 85 45 (0.005) (0.013) Children fully vaccinated at any time before the survey - 0.7464 0.0459 0.062 1.292 1.137 89 117 0.655 0.838 Tuberculosis immunization coverage at any time before the survey - 0.9774 0.0155 0.016 1.284 1.133 84 119 0.946 1.000 Polio immunization coverage at any time before the survey - 0.9323 0.0200 0.021 0.748 0.865 84 119 0.892 0.972 Diphtheria, pertussis and tetanus (DPT) immunization coverage at any time before the survey - 0.9371 0.0195 0.021 0.752 0.867 83 118 0.898 0.976 Hepatitis B immunization coverage at any time before the survey - 0.9237 0.0121 0.013 0.244 0.494 84 119 0.900 0.948 Haemophilus influenzae type B (Hib) immunization coverage at any time before the survey - 0.8577 0.0226 0.026 0.490 0.700 83 118 0.813 0.903 Measles immunization coverage at any time before the survey - 0.8604 0.0432 0.050 1.799 1.341 89 117 0.774 0.947 Attendance to early childhood education 6.1 0.3568 0.0441 0.124 2.247 1.499 223 266 0.269 0.445 Early child development index 6.8 0.9691 0.0091 0.009 0.734 0.857 223 266 0.951 0.987 ( ) Figures that are based on 25-49 unweighted cases na: not applicable 282 Serbia Multiple Indicator Cluster Survey 2014 and Serbia Roma Settlements Multiple Indicator Cluster Survey 2014282 Serbia Multiple Indicator Cluster Survey 2014 and Serbia Roma Settlements Multiple Indicator Cluster Survey 2014 Estimates of Sampling Errors for the 2014 Serbia Roma Settlements MICS Sample The sample of respondents selected in the 2014 Serbia Roma Settlements Multiple Indicator Cluster Survey is only one of the samples that could have been selected from the same population, using the same design and size. Each of these samples would yield results that differ somewhat from the results of the actual sample selected. Sampling errors are a measure of the variability between the estimates from all possible samples. The extent of variability is not known exactly, but can be estimated statistically from the survey data. The following sampling error measures are presented in this appendix for each of the selected indicators:  Standard error (se): Standard error is the square root of the variance of the estimate. For survey indicators that are means, proportions or ratios, the Taylor series linearization method is used for the estimation of standard errors. For more complex statistics, such as fertility and mortality rates, the Jackknife repeated replication method is used for standard error estimation.  Coefficient of variation (se/r) is the ratio of the standard error to the value (r) of the indicator, and is a measure of the relative sampling error.  Design effect (deff ) is the ratio of the actual variance of an indicator, under the sampling method used in the survey, to the variance calculated under the assumption of simple random sampling based on the same sample size. The square root of the design effect (deft) is used to show the efficiency of the sample design in relation to the precision. A deft value of 1.0 indicates that the sample design of the survey is as efficient as a simple random sample for a particular indicator, while a deft value above 1.0 indicates an increase in the standard error due to the use of a more complex sample design.  Confidence limits are calculated to show the interval within which the true value for the population can be reasonably assumed to fall, with a specified level of confidence. For any given statistic calculated from the survey, the value of that statistic will fall within a range of plus or minus two times the standard error (r + 2.se or r – 2.se) of the statistic in 95 percent of all possible samples of identical size and design. For the calculation of sampling errors from MICS data, programmes developed in CSPro Version 5.0 and SPSS Version 21 Complex Samples module have been used. The results are shown in the tables that follow. In addition to the sampling error measures described above, the tables also include weighted and unweighted counts of denominators for each indicator. Given the use of normalized weights, by comparing the weighted and unweighted counts it is possible to determine whether a particular domain has been under- sampled or over-sampled compared to the average sampling rate. If the weighted count is smaller than the unweighted count, this means that the particular domain had been over-sampled. As explained later in the footnote of Table SE.1R, there is an exception in the case of indicators 3.15, 4.1, 4.3, 8.2 and 8.3. Sampling errors are calculated for indicators of primary interest, for the national level, for urban and other areas. Eight of the selected indicators are based on households members, 11 are based on women and 14 are based on children under 5. Table SE.1R shows the list of indicators for which sampling errors are calculated, including the base population (denominator) for each indicator. Tables SE.2R to SE.4R show the calculated sampling errors for selected domains. Monitoring the situation of children and women 283Monitoring the situation of children and women 283 Table SE.1R: Indicators selected for sampling error calculations, Serbia Roma Settlements List of indicators selected for sampling error calculations, and base populations (denominators) for each indicator, Serbia Roma Settlements, 2014 MICS5 Indicator Base Population Household members 3.15 Use of solid fuels for cooking All household membersa 4.1 Use of improved drinking water sources All household membersa 4.3 Use of improved sanitation All household membersa 7.2 School readiness (children attending first grade of primary) Children attending first grade of primary school regardless of age 7.4 Primary school net attendance ratio (adjusted) Children of primary school age (ISCED classification) 7.5 Secondary school net attendance ratio (adjusted) Children of secondary school age (ISCED classification) 8.2 Child labour Children age 5-17 yearsb 8.3 Violent discipline Children age 1-14 yearsb Women 2.6 Early initiation of breastfeeding Women with a live birth in the last 2 years 5.2 Early childbearing Women age 20-24 years 5.3 Contraceptive prevalence rate 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 (1+ times, skilled provider) Women age 15-49 years with a live birth in the last 2 years 5.5b Antenatal care coverage (4+ times, any provider) Women age 15-49 years with a live birth in the last 2 years 5.7 Skilled attendant at delivery Women age 15-49 years with a live birth in the last 2 years 5.9 Caesarean section Women age 15-49 years with a live birth in the last 2 years 7.1 Literacy rate (young women) Women age 15-24 years 8.5 Marriage before age 18 Women age 20-49 years 11.1 Life satisfaction Women age 15-24 years Under-5s 2.1a Underweight prevalence (moderate and severe) Children under age 5 years 2.1b Underweight prevalence (severe) Children under age 5 years 2.2a Stunting prevalence (moderate and severe) Children under age 5 years 2.4 Overweight prevalence Children under age 5 years 2.7 Exclusive breastfeeding under 6 months Infants under 6 months of age - Children fully vaccinated at any time before the survey Children age 24-35 monthsc - Tuberculosis immunization coverage at any time before the survey Children age 12-23 monthsc - Polio immunization coverage at any time before the survey Children age 12-23 monthsc - Diphtheria, pertussis and tetanus (DPT) immunization coverage at any time before the survey Children age 12-23 months c - Hepatitis B immunization coverage at any time before the survey Children age 12-23 monthsc - Haemophilus influenza type B (Hib) immunization coverage at any time before the survey Children age 12-23 months c - Measles immunization coverage at any time before the survey Children age 24-35 monthsc 6.1 Attendance to early childhood education Children age 36-59 months 6.8 Early child development index Children age 36-59 months a To calculate the weighted results of MICS Indicators 3.15, 4.1 and 4.3, the household weight is multiplied by the number of household members in each household. Therefore the unweighted base population presented in the SE tables reflects the unweighted number of households, whereas the weighted numbers reflect the household population. b Random selection of one child age 1-17 years per household is carried out during fieldwork for administering the child labour and/or child discipline modules. The child labour module is administered for children age 5-17 from among those randomly selected, while violent discipline module is administered for children age 1-14. To account for the random selection and calculate MICS Indicators 8.2 and 8.3, the household sample weight is multiplied by the total number of children in the age range in each household. Therefore the unweighted base population presented in the SE tables reflect the unweighted number of households with children in the age range, whereas the weighted numbers reflects the number of children in the age range. c Due to the way missing values are treated, the weighted count in the SE tables for immunization is different from the number in Table CH.1R 284 Serbia Multiple Indicator Cluster Survey 2014 and Serbia Roma Settlements Multiple Indicator Cluster Survey 2014284 Serbia Multiple Indicator Cluster Survey 2014 and Serbia Roma Settlements Multiple Indicator Cluster Survey 2014 Table SE.2R: Sampling errors: Total sample Standard errors, coefficients of variation, design effects (deff), square root of design effects (deft), and confidence intervals for selected indicators, Serbia Roma Settlements, 2014   MICS Indicator MDG Indicator Value (r) Standard error (se) Coefficient of variation (se/r) Design effect (deff) Square root of design effect (deft) Weighted count Unweighted count Confidence limits Lower bound r – 2se Upper bound r + 2se Household members Use of solid fuels for cooking 3.15 0.8188 0.0168 0.020 3.300 1.817 8595 1743 0.785 0.852 Use of improved drinking water sources 4.1 7.8 0.9772 0.0105 0.011 8.639 2.939 8595 1743 0.956 0.998 Use of improved sanitation 4.3 7.9 0.7287 0.0248 0.034 5.428 2.330 8595 1743 0.679 0.778 School readiness (children attending first grade of primary) 7.2 0.7990 0.0341 0.043 1.553 1.246 186 215 0.731 0.867 Primary school net attendance ratio (adjusted) 7.4 2.1 0.8576 0.0211 0.025 3.003 1.733 812 823 0.815 0.900 Secondary school net attendance ratio (adjusted) 7.5 0.5124 0.0282 0.055 3.945 1.986 1368 1237 0.456 0.569 Child labour 8.2 0.0473 0.0098 0.207 2.519 1.587 2634 817 0.028 0.067 Violent discipline 8.3 0.6587 0.0207 0.031 3.473 1.864 3070 1147 0.617 0.700 Women Early initiation of breastfeeding 2.6 0.6907 0.0249 0.036 1.637 1.279 405 567 0.641 0.740 Early childbearing 5.2 0.3831 0.0461 0.120 3.949 1.987 377 440 0.291 0.475 Contraceptive prevalence rate 5.3 5.3 0.6125 0.0175 0.029 2.027 1.424 1533 1573 0.577 0.647 Unmet need 5.4 5.6 0.1388 0.0111 0.080 1.609 1.268 1533 1573 0.117 0.161 Antenatal care coverage (1+ times, skilled provider) 5.5a 5.5 0.9553 0.0140 0.015 2.597 1.612 405 567 0.927 0.983 Antenatal care coverage (4+ times, any provider) 5.5b 5.5 0.7442 0.0353 0.047 3.709 1.926 405 567 0.674 0.815 Skilled attendant at delivery 5.7 5.2 0.9863 0.0043 0.004 0.763 0.873 405 567 0.978 0.995 Caesarean section 5.9 0.1260 0.0198 0.157 2.016 1.420 405 567 0.086 0.166 Literacy rate (young women) 7.1 2.3 0.8013 0.0251 0.031 3.234 1.798 759 817 0.751 0.851 Marriage before age 18 8.5 0.5701 0.0198 0.035 2.735 1.654 1699 1704 0.530 0.610 Life satisfaction 11.1 0.8242 0.0202 0.025 2.301 1.517 759 817 0.784 0.865 Under-5s Underweight prevalence (moderate and severe) 2.1a 1.8 0.0946 0.0123 0.130 2.435 1.561 1363 1383 0.070 0.119 Underweight prevalence (severe) 2.1b 1.8 0.0191 0.0041 0.213 1.221 1.105 1363 1383 0.011 0.027 Stunting prevalence (moderate and severe) 2.2a 0.1852 0.0152 0.082 2.105 1.451 1358 1376 0.155 0.216 Overweight prevalence 2.4 0.0507 0.0078 0.154 1.753 1.324 1356 1381 0.035 0.066 Exclusive breastfeeding under 6 months 2.7 0.1301 0.0411 0.316 1.728 1.315 146 117 0.048 0.212 Children fully vaccinated at any time before the survey - 0.4410 0.0460 0.104 1.680 1.296 204 197 0.349 0.533 Tuberculosis immunization coverage at any time before the survey - 0.9432 0.0156 0.017 1.444 1.202 314 320 0.912 0.974 Polio immunization coverage at any time before the survey - 0.6806 0.0443 0.065 2.341 1.530 251 260 0.592 0.769 Diphtheria, pertussis and tetanus (DPT) immunization coverage at any time before the survey - 0.7059 0.0438 0.062 2.360 1.536 241 256 0.618 0.794 Hepatitis B immunization coverage at any time before the survey - 0.7568 0.0400 0.053 2.188 1.479 245 253 0.677 0.837 Haemophilus influenzae type B (Hib) immunization coverage at any time before the survey - 0.5277 0.0498 0.094 2.386 1.545 228 241 0.428 0.627 Measles immunization coverage at any time before the survey - 0.6880 0.0506 0.074 2.413 1.553 209 203 0.587 0.789 Attendance to early childhood education 6.1 0.0565 0.0168 0.298 3.492 1.869 640 657 0.023 0.090 Early child development index 6.8 0.8331 0.0179 0.022 1.518 1.232 640 657 0.797 0.869 Monitoring the situation of children and women 285Monitoring the situation of children and women 285 Table SE.3R: Sampling errors: Urban Standard errors, coefficients of variation, design effects (deff), square root of design effects (deft), and confidence intervals for selected indicators, Serbia Roma Settlements, 2014   MICS Indicator MDG Indicator Value (r) Standard error (se) Coefficient of variation (se/r) Design effect (deff) Square root of design effect (deft) Weighted count Unweighted count Confidence limits Lower bound r – 2se Upper bound r + 2se Household members Use of solid fuels for cooking 3.15 0.7850 0.0221 0.028 3.280 1.811 6337 1134 0.741 0.829 Use of improved drinking water sources 4.1 7.8 0.9969 0.0016 0.002 0.983 0.992 6337 1134 0.994 1.000 Use of improved sanitation 4.3 7.9 0.7700 0.0302 0.039 5.847 2.418 6337 1134 0.710 0.830 School readiness (children attending first grade of primary) 7.2 0.7998 0.0417 0.052 1.609 1.268 140 149 0.716 0.883 Primary school net attendance ratio (adjusted) 7.4 2.1 0.8535 0.0244 0.029 2.792 1.671 629 587 0.805 0.902 Secondary school net attendance ratio (adjusted) 7.5 0.5289 0.0352 0.066 4.329 2.081 1046 874 0.459 0.599 Child labour 8.2 0.0350 0.0076 0.217 1.331 1.154 1863 551 0.020 0.050 Violent discipline 8.3 0.6817 0.0240 0.035 3.258 1.805 2165 782 0.634 0.730 Women Early initiation of breastfeeding 2.6 0.6926 0.0300 0.043 1.713 1.309 306 407 0.633 0.753 Early childbearing 5.2 0.4050 0.0570 0.141 4.011 2.003 282 299 0.291 0.519 Contraceptive prevalence rate 5.3 5.3 0.6090 0.0205 0.034 1.897 1.377 1147 1075 0.568 0.650 Unmet need 5.4 5.6 0.1321 0.0131 0.099 1.609 1.269 1147 1075 0.106 0.158 Antenatal care coverage (1+ times, skilled provider) 5.5a 5.5 0.9630 0.0169 0.018 3.240 1.800 306 407 0.929 0.997 Antenatal care coverage (4+ times, any provider) 5.5b 5.5 0.7693 0.0412 0.054 3.877 1.969 306 407 0.687 0.852 Skilled attendant at delivery 5.7 5.2 0.9900 0.0049 0.005 0.975 0.988 306 407 0.980 1.000 Caesarean section 5.9 0.1310 0.0254 0.194 2.301 1.517 306 407 0.080 0.182 Literacy rate (young women) 7.1 2.3 0.8041 0.0276 0.034 2.720 1.649 568 563 0.749 0.859 Marriage before age 18 8.5 0.5758 0.0243 0.042 2.793 1.671 1258 1160 0.527 0.624 Life satisfaction 11.1 0.8437 0.0218 0.026 2.025 1.423 568 563 0.800 0.887 Under-5s Underweight prevalence (moderate and severe) 2.1a 1.8 0.0890 0.0147 0.165 2.580 1.606 1013 972 0.060 0.118 Underweight prevalence (severe) 2.1b 1.8 0.0135 0.0029 0.213 0.604 0.777 1013 972 0.008 0.019 Stunting prevalence (moderate and severe) 2.2a 0.1652 0.0141 0.085 1.385 1.177 1009 967 0.137 0.193 Overweight prevalence 2.4 0.0471 0.0096 0.203 1.977 1.406 1006 969 0.028 0.066 Exclusive breastfeeding under 6 months 2.7 0.1563 0.0545 0.349 1.827 1.352 107 82 0.047 0.265 Children fully vaccinated at any time before the survey - 0.4165 0.0617 0.148 2.018 1.421 139 130 0.293 0.540 Tuberculosis immunization coverage at any time before the survey - 0.9415 0.0197 0.021 1.630 1.277 241 232 0.902 0.981 Polio immunization coverage at any time before the survey - 0.7002 0.0544 0.078 2.610 1.616 190 186 0.591 0.809 Diphtheria, pertussis and tetanus (DPT) immunization coverage at any time before the survey - 0.7393 0.0525 0.071 2.573 1.604 178 181 0.634 0.844 Hepatitis B immunization coverage at any time before the survey - 0.7470 0.0501 0.067 2.382 1.543 185 180 0.647 0.847 Haemophilus influenzae type B (Hib) immunization coverage at any time before the survey - 0.5333 0.0608 0.114 2.479 1.574 167 168 0.412 0.655 Measles immunization coverage at any time before the survey - 0.6728 0.0716 0.106 3.074 1.753 141 133 0.530 0.816 Attendance to early childhood education 6.1 0.0643 0.0216 0.337 3.544 1.882 484 456 0.021 0.108 Early child development index 6.8 0.8527 0.0219 0.026 1.740 1.319 484 456 0.809 0.897 286 Serbia Multiple Indicator Cluster Survey 2014 and Serbia Roma Settlements Multiple Indicator Cluster Survey 2014286 Serbia Multiple Indicator Cluster Survey 2014 and Serbia Roma Settlements Multiple Indicator Cluster Survey 2014 Table SE.4R: Sampling errors: Other Standard errors, coefficients of variation, design effects (deff), square root of design effects (deft), and confidence intervals for selected indicators, Serbia Roma Settlements, 2014   MICS Indicator MDG Indicator Value (r) Standard error (se) Coefficient of variation (se/r) Design effect (deff) Square root of design effect (deft) Weighted count Unweighted count Confidence limits Lower bound r – 2se Upper bound r + 2se Household members Use of solid fuels for cooking 3.15 0.9137 0.0165 0.018 2.089 1.445 2259 609 0.881 0.947 Use of improved drinking water sources 4.1 7.8 0.9222 0.0396 0.043 13.291 3.646 2259 609 0.843 1.000 Use of improved sanitation 4.3 7.9 0.6127 0.0422 0.069 4.562 2.136 2259 609 0.528 0.697 School readiness (children attending first grade of primary) 7.2 0.7965 0.0541 0.068 1.175 1.084 46 66 0.688 0.905 Primary school net attendance ratio (adjusted) 7.4 2.1 0.8717 0.0416 0.048 3.641 1.908 183 236 0.788 0.955 Secondary school net attendance ratio (adjusted) 7.5 0.4586 0.0390 0.085 2.217 1.489 321 363 0.381 0.537 Child labour 8.2 0.0874 0.0332 0.380 5.617 2.370 767 266 0.021 0.154 Violent discipline 8.3 0.5846 0.0371 0.063 3.456 1.859 902 365 0.510 0.659 Women Early initiation of breastfeeding 2.6 0.6847 0.0419 0.061 1.292 1.137 99 160 0.601 0.768 Early childbearing 5.2 0.3182 0.0550 0.173 1.955 1.398 95 141 0.208 0.428 Contraceptive prevalence rate 5.3 5.3 0.6226 0.0333 0.054 2.349 1.533 386 498 0.556 0.689 Unmet need 5.4 5.6 0.1587 0.0198 0.125 1.456 1.207 386 498 0.119 0.198 Antenatal care coverage (1+ times, skilled provider) 5.5a 5.5 0.9316 0.0230 0.025 1.320 1.149 99 160 0.886 0.978 Antenatal care coverage (4+ times, any provider) 5.5b 5.5 0.6665 0.0613 0.092 2.687 1.639 99 160 0.544 0.789 Skilled attendant at delivery 5.7 5.2 0.9750 0.0087 0.009 0.489 0.699 99 160 0.958 0.992 Caesarean section 5.9 0.1106 0.0185 0.167 0.551 0.743 99 160 0.074 0.148 Literacy rate (young women) 7.1 2.3 0.7929 0.0564 0.071 4.903 2.214 191 254 0.680 0.906 Marriage before age 18 8.5 0.5539 0.0321 0.058 2.260 1.503 441 544 0.490 0.618 Life satisfaction 11.1 0.7662 0.0475 0.062 3.188 1.785 191 254 0.671 0.861 Under-5s Underweight prevalence (moderate and severe) 2.1a 1.8 0.1109 0.0213 0.192 1.887 1.374 350 411 0.068 0.153 Underweight prevalence (severe) 2.1b 1.8 0.0352 0.0127 0.362 1.957 1.399 350 411 0.010 0.061 Stunting prevalence (moderate and severe) 2.2a 0.2430 0.0412 0.169 3.763 1.940 349 409 0.161 0.325 Overweight prevalence 2.4 0.0608 0.0128 0.210 1.173 1.083 351 412 0.035 0.086 Exclusive breastfeeding under 6 months 2.7 (0.0580) (0.0261) (0.450) (0.424) (0.651) 39 35 (0.006) (0.110) Children fully vaccinated at any time before the survey - 0.4927 0.0621 0.126 1.018 1.009 65 67 0.369 0.617 Tuberculosis immunization coverage at any time before the survey - 0.9488 0.0164 0.017 0.484 0.696 73 88 0.916 0.982 Polio immunization coverage at any time before the survey - 0.6203 0.0659 0.106 1.348 1.161 62 74 0.488 0.752 Diphtheria, pertussis and tetanus (DPT) immunization coverage at any time before the survey - 0.6111 0.0655 0.107 1.337 1.156 63 75 0.480 0.742 Hepatitis B immunization coverage at any time before the survey - 0.7867 0.0522 0.066 1.167 1.080 60 73 0.682 0.891 Haemophilus influenzae type B (Hib) immunization coverage at any time before the survey - 0.5126 0.0838 0.163 2.022 1.422 62 73 0.345 0.680 Measles immunization coverage at any time before the survey - 0.7192 0.0489 0.068 0.818 0.905 68 70 0.621 0.817 Attendance to early childhood education 6.1 0.0323 0.0148 0.459 1.407 1.186 156 201 0.003 0.062 Early child development index 6.8 0.7723 0.0252 0.033 0.725 0.852 156 201 0.722 0.823 ( ) Figures that are based on 25-49 unweighted cases Monitoring the situation of children and women 287 Appendix D Data Quality Tables Data Quality Tables for the 2014 Serbia MICS Table DQ.1: Age distribution of household population (weighted) Single-year age distribution of household population by sex, Serbia, 2014   Males Females Males Females Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent Age Age  0 94 1.0 101 1.0 45 132 1.4 141 1.4 1 82 0.9 74 0.8 46 116 1.2 108 1.1 2 75 0.8 77 0.8 47 128 1.4 138 1.4 3 93 1.0 94 1.0 48 133 1.4 145 1.5 4 114 1.2 91 0.9 49 127 1.4 136 1.4 5 90 1.0 97 1.0 50 131 1.4 158 1.6 6 108 1.2 95 1.0 51 120 1.3 130 1.3 7 112 1.2 101 1.0 52 150 1.6 141 1.4 8 84 0.9 102 1.0 53 133 1.4 133 1.3 9 84 0.9 122 1.2 54 113 1.2 140 1.4 10 91 1.0 62 0.6 55 154 1.6 145 1.5 11 95 1.0 125 1.3 56 113 1.2 133 1.4 12 95 1.0 132 1.3 57 150 1.6 171 1.7 13 108 1.2 95 1.0 58 140 1.5 126 1.3 14 87 0.9 69 0.7 59 166 1.8 170 1.7 15 114 1.2 95 1.0 60 209 2.2 170 1.7 16 128 1.4 81 0.8 61 169 1.8 183 1.9 17 112 1.2 89 0.9 62 148 1.6 146 1.5 18 131 1.4 108 1.1 63 121 1.3 176 1.8 19 121 1.3 106 1.1 64 118 1.3 135 1.4 20 103 1.1 105 1.1 65 133 1.4 148 1.5 21 115 1.2 111 1.1 66 131 1.4 125 1.3 22 134 1.4 116 1.2 67 104 1.1 128 1.3 23 117 1.2 100 1.0 68 67 0.7 90 0.9 24 100 1.1 110 1.1 69 74 0.8 81 0.8 25 103 1.1 141 1.4 70 67 0.7 122 1.2 26 132 1.4 101 1.0 71 76 0.8 87 0.9 27 101 1.1 124 1.3 72 74 0.8 96 1.0 28 110 1.2 120 1.2 73 83 0.9 94 1.0 29 119 1.3 118 1.2 74 79 0.8 76 0.8 30 108 1.1 109 1.1 75 68 0.7 97 1.0 31 131 1.4 145 1.5 76 81 0.9 94 1.0 32 124 1.3 135 1.4 77 61 0.6 90 0.9 33 123 1.3 129 1.3 78 76 0.8 82 0.8 34 160 1.7 118 1.2 79 51 0.5 67 0.7 35 113 1.2 136 1.4 80 40 0.4 71 0.7 36 153 1.6 112 1.1 81 39 0.4 54 0.6 37 126 1.3 132 1.3 82 45 0.5 27 0.3 38 142 1.5 136 1.4 83 29 0.3 50 0.5 39 134 1.4 150 1.5 84 28 0.3 37 0.4 40 141 1.5 126 1.3 85+ 86 0.9 179 1.8 41 111 1.2 130 1.3   42 175 1.9 129 1.3 DK/Missing 0 0.0 2 0.0 43 126 1.3 126 1.3   44 97 1.0 137 1.4 Total 9380 100.0 9832 100.0 288 Serbia Multiple Indicator Cluster Survey 2014 and Serbia Roma Settlements Multiple Indicator Cluster Survey 2014 Figure DQ.1: Household population by single ages, Serbia, 2014 Table DQ.2: Age distribution of eligible and interviewed women (weighted) Household population of women age 10-54 years, interviewed women age 15-49 years, and percentage of eligible women who were interviewed, by five-year age groups, Serbia, 2014   Household population of women age 10-54 years Interviewed women age 15-49 years Percentage of eligible women interviewed (Completion rate) Number Number Percent Age  10-14 483 na na na 15-19 480 428 10.9 89.2 20-24 542 475 12.1 87.6 25-29 604 562 14.3 93.0 30-34 635 591 15.0 93.0 35-39 667 631 16.1 94.6 40-44 649 614 15.6 94.6 45-49 668 630 16.0 94.4 50-54 701 na na na Total (15-49) 4245 3931 100.0 92.6 Ratio of 50-54 to 45-49 1.1 na na na na: not applicable 0 50 100 150 200 250 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 75 80 85+ Number Age Males Females Note: The graph excludes 2 female household members with unknown age and/or sex Monitoring the situation of children and women 289 Table DQ.3: Age distribution of children in household and under-5 questionnaires (weighted) Household population of children age 0-7 years, children age 0-4 years whose mothers/caretakers were interviewed, and percentage of under-5 children whose mothers/caretakers were interviewed, by single years of age, Serbia, 2014   Household population of children 0-7 years Under-5s with completed interviews Percentage of eligible under- 5s with completed interviews (Completion rate)Number Number Percent Age  0 195 188 21.5 96.3 1 157 154 17.5 98.2 2 152 151 17.2 99.1 3 188 183 20.8 97.2 4 205 202 23.0 98.2 5 187 na na na 6 203 na na na 7 213 na na na Total (0-4) 897 877 100.0 97.7 Ratio of 5 to 4 0.9 na na na na: not applicable Table DQ.4: Birth date reporting: Household population (unweighted) Percent distribution of household population by completeness of date of birth information, Serbia, 2014   Completeness of reporting of month and year of birth Total Number of household members Year and month of birth Year of birth only Month of birth only Both missing Total 99.3 0.7 0.0 0.1 100.0 22194 Age  0-4 99.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 2773 5-14 99.7 0.2 0.0 0.0 100.0 2523 15-24 99.7 0.3 0.0 0.0 100.0 1924 25-49 99.8 0.2 0.0 0.0 100.0 8003 50-64 98.9 1.0 0.0 0.1 100.0 4122 65-84 97.4 2.5 0.0 0.0 100.0 2691 85+ 95.4 4.6 0.0 0.0 100.0 153 DK/Missing na na 0.0 80.0 100.0 5 Region  Belgrade 99.5 0.5 0.0 0.0 100.0 4542 Vojvodina 99.5 0.3 0.0 0.2 100.0 5733 Sumadija and Western Serbia 99.2 0.7 0.0 0.0 100.0 6371 Southern and Eastern Serbia 99.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 5548 Area  Urban 99.5 0.4 0.0 0.1 100.0 12671 Other 99.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 9523 na: not applicable 290 Serbia Multiple Indicator Cluster Survey 2014 and Serbia Roma Settlements Multiple Indicator Cluster Survey 2014 Table DQ.5: Birth date and age reporting: Women (unweighted) Percent distribution of women age 15-49 years by completeness of date of birth/age information, Serbia, 2014   Completeness of reporting of date of birth and age Total Number of women age 15-49 years Year and month of birth Year of birth and age Year of birth only Age only Other/DK/ Missing Total 100.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 4713 Region  Belgrade 100.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 1025 Vojvodina 99.9 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 100.0 1241 Sumadija and Western Serbia 99.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 100.0 1336 Southern and Eastern Serbia 100.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 1111 Area  Urban 99.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 2831 Other 100.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 1882 Table DQ.6: Birth date and age reporting: Under-5s (unweighted) Percent distribution children under 5 by completeness of date of birth/age information, Serbia, 2014   Completeness of reporting of date of birth and age Total Number of under-5 children Year and month of birth Year of birth and age Year of birth only Age only Other/DK/ Missing Total 99.9 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 2720 Region  Belgrade 99.7 0.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 642 Vojvodina 100.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 726 Sumadija and Western Serbia 99.9 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 746 Southern and Eastern Serbia 100.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 606 Area  Urban 99.8 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 1710 Other 100.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 1010 Table DQ.7: Birth date reporting: Children, adolescents and young people (unweighted) Percent distribution of children, adolescents and young people age 5-24 years by completeness of date of birth information, Serbia, 2014   Completeness of reporting of month and year of birth Total Number of children, adolescents and young people age 5-24 years Year and month of birth Year of birth only Month of birth only Both missing Total 99.7 0.2 0.0 0.0 100.0 4447 Region  Belgrade 99.4 0.6 0.0 0.0 100.0 810 Vojvodina 99.8 0.1 0.0 0.1 100.0 1217 Sumadija and Western Serbia 99.8 0.2 0.0 0.0 100.0 1324 Southern and Eastern Serbia 99.8 0.2 0.0 0.0 100.0 1096 Area  Urban 99.8 0.2 0.0 0.0 100.0 2500 Other 99.6 0.4 0.0 0.0 100.0 1947 Monitoring the situation of children and women 291 Table DQ.8: Birth date reporting: First and last births (unweighted) Percent distribution of first and last births to women age 15-49 years by completeness of date of birth, Serbia, 2014   Completeness of reporting of date of birth Date of first birth Total Number of first births Date of last birth Total Number of last births Year and month of birth Year of birth only Completed years since first birth only Other/DK/ Missing Year and month of birth Year of birth only Other/DK/ Missing Total 99.6 0.4 0.1 0.0 100.0 3577 99.9 0.0 0.0 100.0 2414 Region  Belgrade 99.9 0.1 0.0 0.0 100.0 745 100.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 451 Vojvodina 99.1 0.5 0.3 0.0 100.0 932 99.8 0.0 0.2 100.0 642 Sumadija and Western Serbia 99.7 0.3 0.0 0.0 100.0 1024 99.9 0.1 0.0 100.0 735 Southern and Eastern Serbia 99.5 0.5 0.0 0.0 100.0 876 100.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 586 Area  Urban 99.6 0.3 0.1 0.0 100.0 2117 99.9 0.1 0.1 100.0 1345 Other 99.5 0.5 0.1 0.0 100.0 1460 100.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 1069 Table DQ.9: Completeness of reporting (weighted) Percentage of observations that are missing information for selected questions and indicators, Serbia, 2014 Questionnaire and type of missing information Reference group Percent with missing/incomplete informationa Number of cases Household  Starting time of interview All households interviewed 0.2 6191 Ending time of interview All households interviewed 0.1 6191 Women  Date of first marriage/union All ever married women age 15-49   Only month 3.3 3193 Both month and year 1.0 3193 Age at first marriage/union All ever married women age 15-49 with year of first marriage not known 0.0 3193 Starting time of interview All women interviewed 0.0 4713 Ending time of interview All women interviewed 0.1 4713 Under-5  Starting time of interview All under-5 children 0.0 2720 Ending time of interview All under-5 children 0.1 2720 a Includes “Don’t know” responses 292 Serbia Multiple Indicator Cluster Survey 2014 and Serbia Roma Settlements Multiple Indicator Cluster Survey 2014 Table DQ.10: Completeness of information for anthropometric indicators: Underweight (unweighted) Percent distribution of children under 5 by completeness of information on date of birth and weight, Serbia, 2014   Valid weight and date of birth Reason for exclusion from analysis Total Percent of children excluded from analysis Number of children under 5 Weight not measured Incomplete date of birth Weight not measured and incomplete date of birth Flagged cases (outliers) Total 89.1 10.7 0.1 0.0 0.1 100.0 10.9 2720 Age <6 months 85.8 13.6 0.0 0.0 0.6 100.0 14.2 169 6-11 months 90.8 9.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 9.2 271 12-23 months 89.5 10.3 0.0 0.0 0.2 100.0 10.5 524 24-35 months 90.3 9.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 9.7 545 36-47 months 87.3 12.0 0.3 0.2 0.2 100.0 12.7 582 48-59 months 89.5 10.3 0.0 0.0 0.2 100.0 10.5 629 Area Urban 87.1 12.5 0.1 0.1 0.2 100.0 12.9 1710 Other 92.5 7.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 7.5 1010 Wealth index quintiles Poorest 92.1 7.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 7.9 394 Second 94.5 5.3 0.0 0.0 0.2 100.0 5.5 457 Middle 91.9 7.9 0.0 0.0 0.2 100.0 8.1 544 Fourth 89.0 10.6 0.0 0.2 0.2 100.0 11.0 583 Richest 82.1 17.5 0.3 0.0 0.1 100.0 17.9 742 Table DQ.11: Completeness of information for anthropometric indicators: Stunting (unweighted) Percent distribution of children under 5 by completeness of information on date of birth and length or height, Serbia, 2014   Valid length/ height and date of birth Reason for exclusion from analysis Total Percent of children excluded from analysis Number of children under 5 Length/Height not measured Incomplete date of birth Length/Height not measured, incomplete date of birth Flagged cases (outliers) Total 88.4 10.8 0.1 0.0 0.7 100.0 11.6 2720 Age <6 months 85.8 13.6 0.0 0.0 0.6 100.0 14.2 169 6-11 months 88.2 9.2 0.0 0.0 2.6 100.0 11.8 271 12-23 months 88.7 10.7 0.0 0.0 0.6 100.0 11.3 524 24-35 months 89.2 10.1 0.0 0.0 0.7 100.0 10.8 545 36-47 months 86.9 12.2 0.3 0.2 0.3 100.0 13.1 582 48-59 months 89.5 10.3 0.0 0.0 0.2 100.0 10.5 629 Area Urban 86.3 12.7 0.1 0.1 0.8 100.0 13.7 1710 Other 91.9 7.7 0.0 0.0 0.4 100.0 8.1 1010 Wealth index quintiles Poorest 92.1 7.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 7.9 394 Second 93.2 5.9 0.0 0.0 0.9 100.0 6.8 457 Middle 91.2 8.1 0.0 0.0 0.7 100.0 8.8 544 Fourth 88.2 10.8 0.0 0.2 0.9 100.0 11.8 583 Richest 81.5 17.5 0.3 0.0 0.7 100.0 18.5 742 Monitoring the situation of children and women 293 Table DQ.12: Completeness of information for anthropometric indicators: Wasting (unweighted) Percent distribution of children under 5 by completeness of information on weight and length or height, Serbia, 2014   Valid weight and length/ height Reason for exclusion from analysis Total Percent of children excluded from analysis Number of children under 5 Weight not measured Length/Height not measured Weight and length/height not measured Flagged cases (outliers) Total 86.8 0.0 0.2 10.7 2.2 100.0 13.1 2720 Age <6 months 85.8 0.0 0.0 13.6 0.6 100.0 14.2 169 6-11 months 88.6 0.0 0.0 9.2 2.2 100.0 11.4 271 12-23 months 88.9 0.0 0.4 10.3 0.4 100.0 11.1 524 24-35 months 89.0 0.0 0.4 9.7 0.9 100.0 11.0 545 36-47 months 85.2 0.0 0.2 12.0 2.2 100.0 14.4 582 48-59 months 84.3 0.0 0.0 10.3 5.4 100.0 15.7 629 Area Urban 84.9 0.0 0.2 12.6 2.3 100.0 15.1 1710 Other 90.3 0.0 0.2 7.5 2.0 100.0 9.7 1010 Wealth index quintiles Poorest 90.9 0.0 0.0 7.9 1.3 100.0 9.1 394 Second 91.7 0.0 0.7 5.3 2.4 100.0 8.3 457 Middle 89.5 0.0 0.2 7.9 2.4 100.0 10.5 544 Fourth 87.1 0.0 0.2 10.8 1.9 100.0 12.9 583 Richest 79.8 0.0 0.0 17.5 2.7 100.0 20.2 742 Table DQ.13: Heaping in anthropometric measurements (unweighted) Distribution of weight and height/length measurements by digits reported for the decimal points, Serbia, 2014 Weight Height or length Number Percent Number Percent Total 2429 100.0 2429 100.0 Digits  0 228 9.4 340 14.0 1 270 11.1 275 11.3 2 316 13.0 321 13.2 3 291 12.0 319 13.1 4 195 8.0 225 9.3 5 257 10.6 210 8.6 6 210 8.6 213 8.8 7 206 8.5 183 7.5 8 251 10.3 182 7.5 9 205 8.4 161 6.6 0 or 5 485 20.0 550 22.6 294 Serbia Multiple Indicator Cluster Survey 2014 and Serbia Roma Settlements Multiple Indicator Cluster Survey 2014 Figure DQ.2: Weight and height/length measurements by digits reported for the decimal points, Serbia, 2014 Table DQ.14: Observation of birth certificates (unweighted) Percent distribution of children under 5 by presence of birth certificates, and percentage of birth certificates seen, Serbia, 2014   Child has birth certificate Child does not have birth certificate DK/Missing Total Percentage of birth certificates seen by the interviewer (1)/(1+2)*100 Number of children under age 5 Seen by the interviewer (1) Not seen by the interviewer (2) Total 78.9 19.6 1.3 0.2 100.0 80.1 2720 Region  Belgrade 80.1 19.5 0.5 0.0 100.0 80.4 642 Vojvodina 70.0 28.2 1.8 0.0 100.0 71.2 726 Sumadija and Western Serbia 81.1 16.2 2.1 0.5 100.0 83.3 746 Southern and Eastern Serbia 85.6 13.4 0.7 0.3 100.0 86.5 606 Area  Urban 81.3 17.3 1.1 0.2 100.0 82.5 1710 Other 74.8 23.4 1.7 0.2 100.0 76.2 1010 Child’s age  0-5 months 80.5 15.4 4.1 0.0 100.0 84.0 169 6-11 months 85.6 12.5 1.5 0.4 100.0 87.2 271 12-23 months 80.2 18.5 1.1 0.2 100.0 81.2 524 24-35 months 79.8 19.8 0.4 0.0 100.0 80.1 545 36-47 months 76.3 21.5 1.7 0.5 100.0 78.0 582 48-59 months 76.2 22.6 1.1 0.2 100.0 77.1 629 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Pe rc en t Digits reported Weight Height or length Monitoring the situation of children and women 295 Table DQ.15: Observation of vaccination cards (unweighted) Percent distribution of children age 0-35 months by presence of a vaccination card, and the percentage of vaccination cards seen by the interviewers, Serbia, 2014   Child does not have vaccination card at home Child has vaccination card at home Child has vaccination card at health facility Percentage of vaccination cards seen by the interviewer (1)/(1+2)*100 Number of children age 0-35 months Had vaccination card previously Never had vaccination card Seen by the interviewer at home (1b) Not seen by the interviewer at home (2b) DK/Missing Seen by the interviewer at health facility (1a) Not seen by the interviewer at health facility (2a) Missing/DK Total 2.8 5.2 73.7 18.2 0.1 77.2 3.1 0.0 89.8 1509 Region  Belgrade 5.6 9.4 54.7 30.0 0.3 51.2 5.9 0.0 74.0 340 Vojvodina 1.9 4.1 78.3 15.7 0.0 79.3 1.7 0.0 92.4 415 Sumadija and Western Serbia 3.1 4.6 74.6 17.6 0.0 84.5 3.1 0.0 92.8 414 Southern and Eastern Serbia 0.9 2.9 85.9 10.3 0.0 91.8 2.1 0.0 97.3 340 Area  Urban 3.0 4.5 73.2 19.2 0.1 75.5 2.3 0.0 89.0 942 Other 2.6 6.3 74.4 16.6 0.0 80.1 4.4 0.0 91.1 567 Child’s age  0-5 months 0.0 14.8 70.4 14.8 0.0 70.4 5.3 0.0 85.2 169 6-11 months 1.1 5.2 78.6 15.1 0.0 78.6 1.8 0.0 92.0 271 12-23 months 1.5 2.9 78.1 17.6 0.0 79.4 2.7 0.0 90.1 524 24-35 months 5.9 4.4 68.1 21.5 0.2 76.5 3.5 0.0 89.6 545 Table DQ.16: Presence of mother in the household and the person interviewed for the under-5 questionnaire (weighted) Distribution of children under five by whether the mother lives in the same household, and the person who was interviewed for the under-5 questionnaire, Serbia, 2014   Mother in the householda Mother not in the household Total Number of children under 5 Mother interviewed Father interviewed Other adult female interviewed Other adult male interviewed Total 97.7 1.0 1.1 0.2 100.0 897 Age  0 99.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 100.0 195 1 96.2 3.3 0.5 0.0 100.0 157 2 98.5 0.8 0.8 0.0 100.0 152 3 97.3 0.7 2.0 0.0 100.0 188 4 97.6 0.7 1.1 0.7 100.0 205 a Columns “Fathers interviewed”, “Other adult female interviewed” and “Other adult male interviewed” under layer “Mother in the household” are not shown in the table because there were no recorded cases 296 Serbia Multiple Indicator Cluster Survey 2014 and Serbia Roma Settlements Multiple Indicator Cluster Survey 2014 Table DQ.17: Selection of children age 1-17 years for the child labour and child discipline modules (unweighted) Percent distribution of households by the number of children age 1-17 years, and the percentage of households with at least two children age 1-17 years where correct selection of one child for the child labour and child discipline modules was performed, Serbia, 2014 Number of children age 1-17 years Total Number of households Percentage of households where correct selection was performed Number of households with 2 or more children age 1-17 years None One Two or more Total 50.3 22.3 27.4 100.0 6191 99.6 1696 Region  Belgrade 48.9 24.3 26.8 100.0 1317 99.4 353 Vojvodina 52.4 20.8 26.8 100.0 1701 99.8 456 Sumadija and Western Serbia 49.5 21.0 29.5 100.0 1704 99.6 503 Southern and Eastern Serbia 50.0 23.9 26.1 100.0 1469 99.7 384 Area  Urban 49.1 24.3 26.6 100.0 3702 99.7 983 Other 51.9 19.4 28.6 100.0 2489 99.6 713 Wealth index quintiles  Poorest 70.2 10.3 19.5 100.0 1458 99.3 285 Second 55.1 19.3 25.6 100.0 1219 100.0 312 Middle 45.7 24.2 30.1 100.0 1199 99.7 361 Fourth 41.5 29.5 28.9 100.0 1124 99.7 325 Richest 33.8 31.6 34.7 100.0 1191 99.5 413 Table DQ.18: School attendance by single age (weighted) Distribution of household population age 5-24 years by educational level and grade attended in the current (or most recent) school year, Serbia, 2014   Not attending school Currently attending Not able to determine DK/Missing Total Number of household membersPreschool Primary school Grade Secondary school Grade Higher than secondary1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 1 2 3 4 Agea 5 1.8 95.7 2.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.3 100.0 198 6 0.7 1.6 96.0 1.0 0.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 217 7 0.0 0.0 2.2 94.3 3.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 193 8 2.0 0.0 0.4 0.3 91.4 5.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 194 9 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.3 6.0 91.9 1.6 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 162 10 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.9 0.1 6.2 88.2 4.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 100.0 220 11 2.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 8.1 88.5 0.8 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 221 12 0.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 1.8 13.3 80.0 1.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.5 100.0 213 13 1.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.8 1.0 10.8 80.4 5.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 152 14 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 41.1 58.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 31 15 4.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.5 0.7 84.6 7.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.8 100.0 203 16 2.4 0.0 0.0 1.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.6 7.0 84.4 4.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 216 17 5.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.2 3.7 85.7 4.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 194 18 18.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.5 0.0 2.4 75.5 2.5 0.0 0.8 100.0 255 19 38.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.3 2.1 2.3 55.9 0.0 0.9 100.0 216 20 39.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 3.1 57.9 0.0 0.0 100.0 221 21 43.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.2 54.6 0.0 0.0 100.0 225 22 54.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.8 0.0 0.0 44.9 0.0 0.0 100.0 243 23 53.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 46.5 0.0 0.0 100.0 208 24 61.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 22.1 16.5 0.0 100.0 213 a Age is adjusted to take into account age eligibility criteria for starting primary school. Since age eligibility criteria for starting primary school changed in Serbia in 2006, separate calculations were applied for children born in 1998 or earlier and those born afterwards. For the first group, the appropriate age at the start of primary school refers to the age in the 2013 calendar year, while for the second group adjusted age is the age of the child (in completed years) by the end of February 2013. Monitoring the situation of children and women 297 Table DQ.19: Sex ratio at birth among children ever born and living (unweighted) Sex ratio (number of males per 100 females) among children ever born (at birth), children living, and deceased children, by age of women, Serbia, 2014 Children Ever Born Children Living Children Deceased Number of womenSons Daughters Sex ratioat birth Sons Daughters Sex ratio Sons Daughters Sex ratio Total 3479 3400 1.02 3429 3362 1.02 50 38 1.32 4713 Age 15-19 12 18 0.67 12 18 0.67 0 0 - 388 20-24 163 164 0.99 161 164 0.98 2 0 - 489 25-29 562 556 1.01 558 554 1.01 4 2 2.00 865 30-34 894 916 0.98 889 903 0.98 5 13 0.38 1065 35-39 742 761 0.98 730 752 0.97 12 9 1.33 813 40-44 580 537 1.08 569 528 1.08 11 9 1.22 570 45-49 526 448 1.17 510 443 1.15 16 5 3.20 523 “-“ The figure is not presented because the denominator is zero 298 Serbia Multiple Indicator Cluster Survey 2014 and Serbia Roma Settlements Multiple Indicator Cluster Survey 2014298 Serbia Multiple Indicator Cluster Survey 2014 and Serbia Roma Settlements Multiple Indicator Cluster Survey 2014 Data Quality Tables for the 2014 Serbia Roma Settlements MICS Table DQ.1R: Age distribution of household population (weighted) Single-year age distribution of household population by sex, Serbia Roma Settlements, 2014   Males Females Males Females Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent Age Age  0 117 2.7 94 2.2 45 54 1.3 41 0.9 1 126 2.9 97 2.2 46 75 1.7 47 1.1 2 86 2.0 107 2.5 47 37 0.9 39 0.9 3 124 2.9 110 2.6 48 35 0.8 37 0.9 4 112 2.6 103 2.4 49 47 1.1 66 1.5 5 84 2.0 116 2.7 50 33 0.8 39 0.9 6 110 2.6 80 1.8 51 50 1.2 37 0.9 7 101 2.4 101 2.3 52 52 1.2 41 0.9 8 81 1.9 119 2.8 53 38 0.9 34 0.8 9 89 2.1 129 3.0 54 37 0.9 36 0.8 10 107 2.5 85 2.0 55 29 0.7 30 0.7 11 84 2.0 114 2.6 56 33 0.8 29 0.7 12 84 2.0 95 2.2 57 34 0.8 30 0.7 13 79 1.8 106 2.5 58 28 0.6 27 0.6 14 80 1.9 69 1.6 59 22 0.5 48 1.1 15 83 1.9 74 1.7 60 27 0.6 32 0.7 16 88 2.1 71 1.6 61 28 0.6 34 0.8 17 81 1.9 70 1.6 62 28 0.7 35 0.8 18 67 1.6 78 1.8 63 46 1.1 36 0.8 19 81 1.9 93 2.2 64 32 0.7 11 0.2 20 84 2.0 72 1.7 65 19 0.4 26 0.6 21 67 1.6 92 2.1 66 23 0.5 16 0.4 22 102 2.4 87 2.0 67 12 0.3 27 0.6 23 54 1.3 62 1.4 68 11 0.3 8 0.2 24 65 1.5 69 1.6 69 5 0.1 13 0.3 25 75 1.8 68 1.6 70 6 0.1 14 0.3 26 74 1.7 55 1.3 71 14 0.3 9 0.2 27 64 1.5 42 1.0 72 5 0.1 6 0.1 28 57 1.3 60 1.4 73 14 0.3 16 0.4 29 73 1.7 63 1.5 74 10 0.2 11 0.3 30 38 .9 46 1.1 75 10 0.2 4 0.1 31 58 1.3 73 1.7 76 8 0.2 6 0.1 32 53 1.2 55 1.3 77 1 0.0 4 0.1 33 57 1.3 51 1.2 78 7 0.2 5 0.1 34 45 1.1 63 1.5 79 6 0.1 3 0.1 35 49 1.1 54 1.2 80 1 0.0 0 0.0 36 52 1.2 49 1.1 81 3 0.1 1 0.0 37 65 1.5 67 1.5 82 2 0.1 2 0.1 38 60 1.4 51 1.2 83 1 0.0 0 0.0 39 39 .9 53 1.2 84 2 0.0 0 0.0 40 82 1.9 40 0.9 85+ 3 0.1 5 0.1 41 64 1.5 67 1.6   42 40 0.9 48 1.1 DK/Missing 2 0.1 3 0.1 43 45 1.0 60 1.4   44 30 0.7 37 0.9 Total 4286 100.0 4309 100.0 Monitoring the situation of children and women 299Monitoring the situation of children and women 299 Figure DQ.1R: Household population by single ages, Serbia Roma Settlements, 2014 Table DQ.2R: Age distribution of eligible and interviewed women (weighted) Household population of women age 10-54 years, interviewed women age 15-49 years, and percentage of eligible women who were interviewed, by five-year age groups, Serbia Roma Settlements, 2014   Household population of women age 10-54 years Interviewed women age 15-49 years Percentage of eligible women interviewed (Completion rate) Number Number Percent Age  10-14 469 na na na 15-19 387 373 18.4 96.3 20-24 381 368 18.1 96.4 25-29 289 277 13.6 95.7 30-34 288 280 13.8 97.3 35-39 273 261 12.9 95.7 40-44 252 248 12.2 98.3 45-49 231 223 11.0 96.8 50-54 187 na na na Total (15-49) 2101 2030 100.0 96.6 Ratio of 50-54 to 45-49 0.81 na na na na: not applicable 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 75 80 85+ Number Age Males Females Note: The graph excludes 2 male and 3 female members of the ŚŽƵƐĞŚŽůĚ�ƉŽƉƵůĂƟŽŶ� with unknown age and/or sex 300 Serbia Multiple Indicator Cluster Survey 2014 and Serbia Roma Settlements Multiple Indicator Cluster Survey 2014300 Serbia Multiple Indicator Cluster Survey 2014 and Serbia Roma Settlements Multiple Indicator Cluster Survey 2014 Table DQ.3R: Age distribution of children in household and under-5 questionnaires (weighted) Household population of children age 0-7 years, children age 0-4 years whose mothers/caretakers were interviewed, and percentage of under-5 children whose mothers/caretakers were interviewed, by single years of age, Serbia Roma Settlements, 2014   Household population of children 0-7 years Under-5s with completed interviews Percentage of eligible under- 5s with completed interviews (Completion rate)Number Number Percent Age  0 211 202 19.3 95.9 1 223 218 20.8 97.6 2 193 188 18.0 97.7 3 234 229 21.9 97.9 4 215 211 20.2 98.0 5 200 na na na 6 190 na na na 7 202 na na na Total (0-4) 1076 1048 100.0 97.4 Ratio of 5 to 4 0.93 na na na na: not applicable Table DQ.4R: Birth date reporting: Household population (unweighted) Percent distribution of household population by completeness of date of birth information, Serbia Roma Settlements, 2014   Completeness of reporting of month and year of birth Total Number of household membersYear and month of birth Year of birth only Month of birth only Both missing Total 98.5 1.2 0.0 0.2 100.0 9014 Age  0-4 99.6 0.4 0.0 0.0 100.0 1556 5-14 98.3 1.4 0.0 0.3 100.0 1919 15-24 98.9 0.9 0.0 0.1 100.0 1601 25-49 98.8 1.1 0.0 0.1 100.0 2680 50-64 97.1 2.3 0.1 0.5 100.0 960 65-84 95.2 4.5 0.0 0.3 100.0 290 85+ 100.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 3 DK/Missing na na 0.0 100.0 100.0 5 Area  Urban 98.7 1.2 0.0 0.2 100.0 6170 Other 98.2 1.4 0.0 0.4 100.0 2844 na: not applicable Monitoring the situation of children and women 301Monitoring the situation of children and women 301 Table DQ.5R: Birth date and age reporting: Women (unweighted) Percent distribution of women age 15-49 years by completeness of date of birth/age information, Serbia Roma Settlements, 2014   Completeness of reporting of date of birth and age Total Number of women age 15-49 years Year and month of birth Year of birth and age Year of birth only Age only Other/DK/Missing Total 99.4 0.5 0.0 0.1 0.0 100.0 2081 Area  Urban 99.3 0.6 0.0 0.1 0.0 100.0 1424 Other 99.7 0.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 657 Table DQ.6R: Birth date and age reporting: Under-5s (unweighted) Percent distribution children under 5 by completeness of date of birth/age information, Serbia Roma Settlements, 2014   Completeness of reporting of date of birth and age Total Number of under-5 childrenYear and month of birth Year of birth and age Year of birth only Age only Other/DK/Missing Total 99.8 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 1515 Area  Urban 99.9 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 1065 Other 99.6 0.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 450 Table DQ.7R: Birth date reporting: Children, adolescents and young people (unweighted) Percent distribution of children, adolescents and young people age 5-24 years by completeness of date of birth information, Serbia Roma Settlements, 2014   Completeness of reporting of month and year of birth Total Number of children, adolescents and young people age 5-24 years Year and month of birth Year of birth only Month of birth only Both missing Total 98.6 1.2 0.0 0.2 100.0 3520 Area  Urban 98.9 1.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 2449 Other 97.9 1.6 0.0 0.6 100.0 1071 Table DQ.8R: Birth date reporting: First and last births (unweighted) Percent distribution of first and last births to women age 15-49 years by completeness of date of birth, Serbia Roma Settlements, 2014   Completeness of reporting of date of birth Date of first birth Total Number of first births Date of last birth Total Number of last births Year and month of birth Year of birth only Completed years since first birth only Other/DK/ Missing Year and month of birth Year of birth only Other/DK/ Missing Total 97.0 2.4 0.6 0.1 100.0 1706 99.9 0.1 0.0 100.0 1427 Area  Urban 97.3 2.2 0.4 0.1 100.0 1166 99.9 0.1 0.0 100.0 977 Other 96.3 2.8 0.9 0.0 100.0 540 100.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 450 302 Serbia Multiple Indicator Cluster Survey 2014 and Serbia Roma Settlements Multiple Indicator Cluster Survey 2014302 Serbia Multiple Indicator Cluster Survey 2014 and Serbia Roma Settlements Multiple Indicator Cluster Survey 2014 Table DQ.9R: Completeness of reporting (weighted) Percentage of observations that are missing information for selected questions and indicators, Serbia Roma Settlements, 2014 Questionnaire and type of missing information Reference group Percent with missing/incomplete informationa Number of cases Household  Starting time of interview All households interviewed 0.1 1743 Ending time of interview All households interviewed 0.1 1743 Women  Date of first marriage/union All ever married women age 15-49   Only month 14.5 1746 Both month and year 14.3 1746 Age at first marriage/union All ever married women a