4. OVERALL DISCRIMINATION AND GROUPS MOST AT RISK
4.1 Vulnerability to Any Form of Discrimination Across Social Groups
The “raw” and modelled risks of “any” discrimination for a number of key social and demographic groups are summarised in Table 4.1 and discussed below. Table 4.1 combines the results of the two methods: bivariate and multivariate analysis across the various social and demographic groups on which we have data.
The percentage “raw” risk in column 1 indicates the proportion of the group in question that experienced some form of discrimination in the last two years. The “modelled risk” in column 2 represents the result of regression analysis of the data. (The technique of regression analysis was explained in Section 2.1.)
Table 4.1: Respondents Who Experienced Any Discrimination in Last 2 Years: Raw and Modelled Risk
Group Column 1
% Raw Risk Modelled Risk Column 2
All 12.5 - Male 12.4 Reference Female 12.5 Same 18-24 years 17.6 Reference 25-44 years 14.4 Lower 45-64 years 10.2 Lower
65+ years 6.3 Much Lower
White 12.0 Reference
Black or Black Irish 40.0 Higher
Asian or Asian Irish 25.0 Same
Other including mixed background 31.0 Higher
Irish 11.5 Reference
Non-Irish 24.4 Higher
Catholic 11.0 Reference
Church of Ireland 13.2 Same
Other Christian 23.7 Higher
Islam 26.7 Same
Other Religion 24.7 Higher
No Religion 23.8 Higher
No disability 11.5 Reference
Disability 19.5 Much Higher
Primary Education 10.2 Reference
Lower Second Education 11.7 Same
Upper Second Education 11.9 Same
Post-Second level Education 14.3 Higher
Employed 11.9 Reference
Unemployed 29.2 Much Higher
Inactive 12.0 Same
Single 15.3 Reference
Widowed 7.7 Lower
Separated 19.3 Higher
Married 10.3 Lower
No child <15 years 11.4 Reference
Couple child <15 years 13.4 Higher
Lone Parent child <15 years 23.3 Higher
Notes: The gross weighted number of respondents in each group, who reported being discriminated against in the past two years, is supplied in the Table A4.1. “% Raw Risk” refers to percentage of respondents that reported discrimination in last two years within each group. Weighted.
“Modelled risk” refers to relative risk of subcategories to discrimination when compared to the reference subcategory within group, when other characteristics are controlled (e.g. married respondents compared to single respondents). Much higher = more than twice the risk; Much lower = less than half the risk compared to reference group. Same = group does not differ significantly to reference group. Models are not weighted following convention. Full model results are reported in Appendix Table A4.5.
Across the population as a whole, 12.5 per cent report having experienced some form of discrimination in the last two years. There are clear differences in the rates of discrimination across social and demographic groups. We look at a range of characteristics e.g. sex, age, ethnicity, marital status, family status, education etc. These characteristics cover many of the grounds on which discrimination is legally prohibited in Ireland, but there are a number of important omissions, namely sexual orientation and membership of the Traveller community. Respondents were not
asked about information on their sexual orientation, and the Traveller category is subsumed within the “White” ethnicity category, because of the small number of cases, therefore, we cannot calculate rates of discrimination among these groups.30
When all characteristics are considered simultaneously we find that the factors that have the largest independent influence on the likelihood of reporting any subjective discrimination are age, disability, and employment status. A more detailed discussion of raw and modelled risk across the social and demographic groups follows below.
Gender and Age
The overall incidence of discrimination is almost identical for women and men (column 1) and no significant gender difference emerges in the modelled results (column 2). As we saw in Chapter 2, gender is significant in both work domains and in the financial services and health domains. Women are more likely than men to report discrimination at work and in the health domain, and less likely than men to report discrimination looking for work and in financial services. However, when we aggregate the domains in the overall model presented in Table 4.1, the effects cancel each other out. Also note that these modelled results refer to gender as a risk factor independently of marital and family status.
Interestingly, subjective experience of discrimination declines with age: highest levels are reported among the 18 to 24 year age group; 18 per cent of whom report discrimination in the last two years. In the model all older age groups were found to be less likely to report experience of discrimination than 18 to 24 year olds. It is striking that people aged 65+ years are much less likely to report experience of discrimination. This may reflect different tendencies to interpret differential treatment as discriminatory.
Ethnicity, Nationality and Religion
Ethnicity, nationality and religion are linked to the overall incidence of discrimination. The number of respondents in these groups is small so there are wider margins of error attached to these estimates (see Appendix Tables A4.2, A4.3 and A4.4). White respondents report the lowest “raw” rate of discrimination (12 per cent), compared to 25 per cent of Asian and 40 per cent of Black respondents. Just under a third of those with other or mixed ethnic backgrounds say they experienced discrimination in the last two years. The modelled results provide more nuanced information on the risk of the experience of discrimination. Respondents of Black ethnicity emerge as much more vulnerable than White respondents. Detailed model results (Appendix Table A4.5) show that they are in fact almost twice as likely to perceive discrimination as White respondents. Those of ‘Other’ ethnicity also emerge as more vulnerable to discrimination while Asian respondents are not significantly more likely to report such experience, possibly because nationality and religion are controlled.
Irish nationals are less likely to report discrimination than non-Irish nationals: 12 per cent compared to 24 per cent. Raw rates for more detailed nationality categories are provided in Appendix Table A4.2 at end of this chapter31 and show that even those
from the UK report higher levels of discrimination (16 per cent) than Irish nationals. The proportion reporting discrimination is higher again among those from other EU countries but does not vary between the EU15 and new EU10 states (24 per cent in 30 However, as we saw in Chapter 3 respondents were given the option of saying they had been discriminated against on the grounds of their sexual orientation or membership of the Traveller community.
31 Estimates for detailed nationalities are provided separately in Appendix Table A2.1, along with confidence intervals, which show the wider range of error for these smaller groups.
both cases). The percentage reporting discrimination rises to 38 per cent among respondents from Africa and 30 per cent among respondents from Asia, including the Middle East. These more detailed nationality categories are not included in the modelled results due to the small sample size. Model results show, however, that non-Irish nationals are 1.5 times more likely to perceive discrimination than Irish nationals.
Table 4.1 shows that Non-Catholic groups tend to report higher rates of discrimination compared to Catholics. Muslims record the highest “raw” rate of discrimination, however, when other factors are accounted for in the model, they do not differ significantly from Catholics, neither do Church of Ireland respondents. The model results do show that “other Christian”, “other religion” and “no religion” groups are all more vulnerable than Catholics, even after nationality and ethnicity have been controlled, and that these characteristics overlap.
Disability
A much higher proportion of people with a disability say they have experienced discrimination (20 per cent) than those without (12 per cent). However, the model results reveal just how much more vulnerable this group is: disabled respondents are three times more likely to perceive discrimination when other characteristics are controlled (see Appendix Table A4.5).
Education, Employment Status.
A high proportion of the unemployed reported experiencing discrimination (29 per cent). In the model this group emerges as almost three times more likely to perceive such experience as employed respondents (see Table A4.5). This finding is interesting especially given that unemployment is not a ground covered by equality legislation. There is no significant difference in the level of discrimination reported by the employed and the economically inactive.
The relationship between education level and discrimination is not particularly strong but interestingly it is the most socially advantaged group i.e. those with post- secondary/third level education who are more likely to say they have been discriminated against. This pattern of results was also found in the survey of racism in Ireland (McGinnity and O’Connell, 2006). The authors suggest that the more highly educated have a greater awareness of their rights and higher expectations of fair treatment and are therefore more likely to interpret a given incident as discrimination.
Marital Status, Family Status
With regard to family status, being a lone parent is a strong predictor of having felt discriminated against in the last two years (see Table 4.1). Comparing rates of discrimination by marital status we see that those who are separated and those who are single are more likely to record discrimination than the married and widowed. It is likely that there is a significant degree of overlap between the separated and lone parent group however both characteristics emerge as significant in the models. (It is worth repeating that these individuals may have felt discriminated against on grounds other than their marital or family status.)