Report on the living conditions of Roma households in Slovakia 2010

UNDP, 2012

europeandcis.undp.org

Report on the Living Conditions of Roma households in Slovakia 2010

UNDP Europe and the CIS, Bratislava Regional Centre

United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) expresses its gratitude to the Ministry of Labor, Social Affairs and Family of the Slovak Republic for financial support and collaboration in implementation of this project

Š UNDP 2012 ISBN: 978-80-89263-11-0 All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system or transmitted, in all forms by any emans, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise prior permission.

Cover and layout design: Valeur, s. r. o., Slovak Republic

The views expressed in this publication do not necessarily represent those of the UNDP Executive Board.

Authors and expert support The main authors of the report are Jarmila Filadelfiová and Daniel Gerbery, who analysed the data files, worked up the text of the report and prepared the graphs and tables.

Ján Vittek provided invaluable statistical help to the authors. Daniel Škobla took part in the final editing of the text and in preparing the introduction and conclusion.

The report’s recommendations were prepared by a team of experts from the United Nations Development Programme in Bratislava.

The final form of the text profited from knowledgeable comments and feedback from the following experts: Igor André, Christian Brueggemann, Richard Filčák, Eben Friedman, James Grellier, Jakob Hurrle, Juraj Kuruc, Martin Kahanec, Sándor Karácsony, Martina Kubánová, Zuzana Kusá, Jarmila Lajčáková, Katarína Mathernová and Michal Vašečka.

Key methodological questions both in the process of data collection and analysis of the data sets were answered by experts: Andrey Ivanov, Jaroslav Kling, Joost de Laat, Tadas Leončikas and Alojz Ritomský. The methodology for data collection came from the model developed by a team of experts at the World Bank under the leadership of Valerie Evans. Anton Marcinčin provided valuable feedback regarding the analyses of eco-

nomic activity. Jarmila Filadelfiová played a role in preparation of the questionnaire for the field survey.

This publication would not be possible without the support of senior managers at the UN Development Programme Regional Centre in Bratislava, specifically: Jens Wandel, Balázs Horváth, Andrey Ivanov, Nato Alhazashvili, Daniela Gašparíková and Daniel Hanšpach. The project leader was Daniel Škobla.

The framework for successful implementation of the project, within which this report originated, was created by the project council, which included: Martina Baťová (Ministry of Labour, Social Affairs and Family of the Slovak Republic), Peter Guráň (UN Committee on the Rights of the Child), Ľudmila Ivančíková (Statistical Office of the Slovak Republic) and Katarína Muszková, Mária Nádaždyová, Martin Vavrinčík and Nadežda Šebová, all from the Ministry of Labour, Social Affairs and Family of the Slovak Republic.

For support and consultation on certain questions it is necessary to thank the employees from the Office of the Plenipotentiary of the Slovak Republic Government for Roma Communities: Miroslav Pollák, Zuzana Kumanová and Alexander Mušinka. The agency TNS Slovakia was responsible for the coordination of data collection in the field and the creation of the database, specifically employees: Ľubica Szviteková, Soňa Tomešová and Iveta Šottníková.

3

Forward The report you are holding in your hands is one of the key outputs of an extensive research project focused on an analysis of the living conditions of the marginalised Roma population in Slovakia and carried out by the Bratislava Regional Centre of the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) for Europe and the Commonwealth of Independent States, in cooperation with the Ministry of Work, Social Affairs and Family of the Slovak Republic. The UNDP Regional Centre has been operating in Bratislava since 1998, and during this time it has carried out, and as a partner has shared in, many projects devoted to the integration of socially excluded groups of citizens. These projects have been focused on support for community development, employment, social services and social economics, as well as on research activities and the monitoring of the living conditions of socially excluded groups of citizens, with the goal of compiling data for responsible public policies based on relevant knowledge and information. All of these activities have been carried out in accordance with the UNDP mandate, which consists of providing help for national governments with the resolution of development questions.

The fight against poverty and social exclusion is one of the long-term priorities of the UNDP. At the Millennium Summit in the year 2000, UN Member States obligated themselves to devote priority attention on permanently sustainable development and combating poverty. The result of the initiative was acceptance of the Millennium Development Goals, which are connected to an agreement and a resolution of the UN from the previous decade. Significant regional differences continue to persist in Slovakia in measures of poverty, unemployment and average wages, as well as in education and health status indicators. In some regions it is possible to even speak of islands of deep poverty. Aside from regional disparities, there exist in Slovakia vulnerable, excluded and marginalised groups of citizens who do not have the opportunity for equal participation in economic and social development. In some groups this exclusion has a long-term character, while others have fallen into poverty as a consequence of transformational societal shifts. Research data suggests that at present these islands of poverty in Slovakia for the most part overlap with those regions and locations having a predominance of Roma residents.

A number of UN agencies have consulted on, supported and in practice carried out the collection of statistical and research data on the living conditions of excluded Roma communities over the past decade. The UNDP itself has since the year 2002 carried out a number of large international comparative studies on the socioeconomic conditions of the marginalised Roma population in Central Europe and the Balkans. The report you are currently holding is another continuation of the activities of the UNDP focused on the collection of data and the quantification of information about the social exclusion of Roma households and their comparison with non-Roma households living in the same geographic areas. The report was prepared on the basis of data from an extensive questionnaire survey of Roma households conducted in Slovakia in the year 2010.

The UNDP sees this publication as a step which creates a space for understanding the complicated situation that excluded communities find themselves living in, and which enables the making of adequate and urgent political decisions for creating the framework for a dignified life. The report can help reveal through its policy recommendations how it is both suitable and necessary in environments of socially excluded Roma communities to set parameters for the labour market, social protection and help, and the conditions for education and housing, particularly in association with the current economic crisis and budget problems which states and their citizens are experiencing. The report is intended for the decision-making sphere, institutions and individuals who deal with improving the conditions for marginalised groups of population and for the Roma in particular. We believe that the knowledge, conclusions and recommendations of this publication will contribute to further effective steps of state administration and of all people interested in their efforts to erase islands of poverty and social exclusion from the map of Slovakia.

Balรกzs Horvรกth Director of the Poverty Reduction Section Regional Centre of the UN Development Programme

5

Content FOREWORD ........................................................................................................................................................................................................5

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ................................................................................................................................................................................11 Chapter 1:

INTRODUCTION ..................................................................................................................................................................19

Chapter 2:

METHODOLOGICAL INFORMATION AND A DESCRIPTION OF THE RESEARCH SAMPLE......................23 2.1. RESEARCH PROCEDURE AND DATA COLLECTION...........................................................................................23 2.2. DESCRIPTION OF THE RESEARCH SAMPLE.........................................................................................................24 2.2.1. The frequency of the researched sets of households, families and individuals......................24 2.2.2. Composition of the research sets according to selected quantitative characteristics .........24 2.2.3. A comparison of sets of households by cohabiting generations.................................................29

Chapter 3:

DEMOGRAPHIC CHARACTERISTICS OF THE ROMA POPULATION IN COMPARISONS...........................31 3.1. STRUCTURE BY GENDER AND FAMILY STATUS .................................................................................................31 3.2. AGE STRUCTURE..........................................................................................................................................................35 3.3. STRUCTURE ON THE BASIS OF PRODUCTIVITY ................................................................................................37 CONCLUSIONS .....................................................................................................................................................................39

Chapter 4:

MOTHER TONGUE AND LANGUAGE USED IN DAILY LIFE IN THE ROMA POPULATION .......................41 4.1. NATIVE LANGUAGE.....................................................................................................................................................41 4.2 LANGUAGE OF DAILY USE IN THE ROMA POPULATION ................................................................................42 CONCLUSIONS .....................................................................................................................................................................46

Chapter 5:

MIGRATION AND EXCLUSION RELATING TO HOUSING .....................................................................................47 5.1. MOBILITY TO PLACE OF CURRENT RESIDENCE AND WITHIN IT ..................................................................47 5.1.1. Continuity of residence in the present municipality versus migration......................................47 5.1.2. Changes of place of residence within a municipality.......................................................................48 5.1.3. Migrations by geographic position of the municipality of previous residence .....................49 5.2. PREVIOUS VERSUS PRESENT RESIDENCE BY LEVEL OF SEGREGATION ....................................................51 5.3. REASONS FOR MOVING AND MIGRATING..........................................................................................................54 5.4. MOBILITY FROM PLACE OF PRESENT RESIDENCE ..........................................................................................60 CONCLUSIONS .....................................................................................................................................................................63

Chapter 6:

MATERIAL CONDITIONS OF LIFE: HOUSING AND HOUSEHOLD FURNISHINGS.......................................65 6.1. TYPE OF DWELLING....................................................................................................................................................65 6.2. SIZE CHARACTERISTICS OF DWELLINGS.............................................................................................................67 6.3. OWNERSHIP RELATIONS TO HOUSE/FLAT AND PROPERTY .........................................................................69 6.4. ACCESS TO WATER AND ITS QUALITY ..................................................................................................................71

7

6.5. WASTE AND METHOD OF ITS REMOVAL .............................................................................................................74 6.6. HOUSEHOLD GOODS ...............................................................................................................................................76 CONCLUSIONS .....................................................................................................................................................................80 Chapter 7:

HEALTH STATUS AND ACCESSIBILITY OF HEALTH CARE ...................................................................................81 7.1. OCCURRENCE OF CHRONIC ILLNESSES AND INVALIDITY.............................................................................81 7.2. COMMON ILLNESSES, SEEING A DOCTOR, PRESCRIPTION MEDICINE .....................................................85 7.3. EVALUATION OF HEALTH STATUS ..........................................................................................................................89 CONCLUSIONS .....................................................................................................................................................................90

Chapter 8:

EDUCATION AND EXPENDITURES ON EDUCATION.............................................................................................95 8.1. EDUCATIONAL STRUCTURE OF PERSONS WHO ARE NO LONGER IN THE SCHOOL SYSTEM ...........95 8.2. PERSONS IN THE EDUCATIONAL SYSTEM: ATTENDING SCHOOL, CONDITIONS OF EDUCATION...............................................................................................................................101 8.3. LITERACY......................................................................................................................................................................107 8.4. ATTENDING NURSERY SCHOOL BEFORE ENTRY INTO THE SCHOOL SYSTEM.....................................108 8.5. EXPENDITURES FOR EDUCATION........................................................................................................................110 CONCLUSIONS ...................................................................................................................................................................113

Chapter 9:

EXCLUSION FROM THE LABOUR MARKET.............................................................................................................117 9.1. DECLARED ECONOMIC ACTIVITIES AND EMPLOYMENT ............................................................................117 9.1.1. Structure of the Roma population age 15+ years by economic status ...................................117 9.1.2. Differences in declared economic activities of Roma men and women .................................122 9.1.3. Work activities of the Roma population by type and economic activity in total .................126 9.1.4. Comparison of declared economic activities by age and education128 9.2. GENERAL WORK EXPERIENCE OF THE ROMA POPULATION .....................................................................133 9.2.1. Experience of the Roma population age 15+ years with more permanent work ...............134 9.2.2. Experience with more permanent work by current economic status......................................135 9.2.3. Work experience during a lifetime by age and education ...........................................................138 9.2.4. Average age of first entry into the labour market ..........................................................................142 9.3. THE ROMA POPULATION AND THE LABOUR MARKET BY LABOUR FORCE SURVEY METHODOLOGY: STANDING AND DEPENDENCIES .....................................................................................143 9.3.1. Performing at least one hour of work per week...............................................................................143 9.3.2. The measure of employment, unemployment and economic activity using the Labour Force Survey (VZPS) methodology ................................................................................146 9.3.3. Employment and unemployment: influential factors....................................................................151 9.3.4. Quality and stability of work activities of the Roma population ...............................................155 9.3.5. Characteristics of unemployment of the Roma population and experience with institutions ...........................................................................................................158 9.3.6. Impacts of exclusion from the labour market on the situation of households ....................163 9.4. PARTICIPATION IN ACTIVATION PROGRAMMES ............................................................................................165

8

9.4.1. Total experience with work in an activation programme.............................................................166

9.4.2. Current participation in an activation programme.........................................................................169 9.4.3. Further education of the Roma population with finished vocational training.....................171 CONCLUSIONS ...................................................................................................................................................................173

Chapter 10: STANDARD OF LIVING OF ROMA HOUSEHOLDS – INCOMES, FINANCIAL DIFFICULTIES AND DEPRIVATION IN CONSUMPTION.........................................181 10.1. TOTAL WORK INCOMES ........................................................................................................................................181 10.2. TOTAL SOCIAL INCOMES......................................................................................................................................182 10.3. THE DRAWING OF SOCIAL TRANSFERS...........................................................................................................186 10.3.1. The benefit in material need and allowances associated with it.............................................186 10.3.2. Pensions .......................................................................................................................................................188 10.3.3. Family benefits...........................................................................................................................................189 10.3.4. Unemployment benefits ........................................................................................................................190 10.4. TOTAL INCOMES......................................................................................................................................................191 10.5. DEPRIVATION IN THE FIELD OF CONSUMPTION AND THE OCCURRENCE OF ARREARS................194 CONCLUSIONS ...................................................................................................................................................................197 Chapter 11: EXTREME DEPRIVATION AND SUBJECTIVE EVALUATION OF THE LIVING SITUATION VERSUS WORK AND INCOME......................................................................................................................................199 11.1. EXTREME DEPRIVATION: FOOD FOR CHILDREN, COOKING AND HEATING .......................................199 11.2. SATISFACTION WITH PRESENT FINANCIAL SITUATION AND EVALUATION OF CHANGES TO IT OVER TIME..........................................................................................................................211 CONCLUSIONS ...................................................................................................................................................................223 RECOMMENDATIONS ................................................................................................................................................................................225 LITERATURE...................................................................................................................................................................................................231

9

Executive Summary This report was written on the basis of data from comprehensive sample survey of the living conditions of Roma households in Slovakia in 2010. Report is primarily focused on comparison of different Roma living environments (segregated, separated, diffused) and on comparison of average values between Roma households and individuals on the one hand and households and individuals from the general population living in close proximity to Roma, on the other hand. When it is possible and reasonable, report compares situation in year 2010 with the situation in year 2005. The report was divided into 11 chapters according to the thematic areas.

In addition to the introduction and methodological parts, substance of the report are chapters No. 3 to 11.

Methodological information and a description of the research sample Research framework for this research derive from the socalled sociographic mapping of Roma communities in Slovakia (Atlas of Roma Communities in Slovakia 2004), which were based on the assumption that the marginalised Roma population lives in certain spatial enclaves.

Such a method of mapping provided detailed information about Roma settlements, on the basis of which it was possible for UNDP sample survey to divide Roma settlements into three basic classes according to the degree of integration with the majority population – segregated, separated and diffused. An equal number of districts (of various numbers – containing approximately between 40 and 120 households) were created for each of these classes, from which 30 sites in each class were selected for data collection using random proportional selection.

After a check and final revision, a total of 1,083 households were included in the analyses and statistical processing. The set of Roma households totalled 723 units, and each subset defined by the type of living was represented by approximately an equal number of households – individually this was about 240 households from the groups living segregated, separated and diffused. Relatively speaking, then, each subset represented one-third of the total. The control set of spatially close general population was made up of 360 households. Three types of data were collected in each selected household. These were data related to the household as a whole, additional data related to families making up the household, and finally data about the individual members of the household. Thus, three mutually related research sets were created – in addition to the set for households, these was a set for families and a set for individuals.

The majority of selected households were identical with a nuclear family; they were not made up of several family units. In regard to the set of individuals, which was formed by all of the members of the selected households, a total of 3,614 persons were represented in the research sample for the Roma population, of which segregated communities represented 1,277 persons (a 35 % share), separated 1,232 persons (34 %) and living diffused 1,105 persons (31 %). The size of the research set of individuals for the spatially close general population in the end totalled 1,060 respondents.

While not quite 3% of total Roma households were made up of single-member households, this number was nearly 17% from general households from the nearby vicinity. On the other hand, households with eight or more members represented nearly 15% of the Roma set but only 0.3% of the general set.

The Roma sets were in structure not only larger in overall household membership but also in the representation of children of different age categories; on the other hand, they also had a significantly smaller share of households and individuals in relation to the number of working members. Thus, the basic makeup of the surveyed sets already strongly indicates the different social, life and work situation of both compared sets of households and their members, which the results of the analyses subsequently confirmed.

Thus, on the basis of biological as well as by productive age, the structure of the Roma population is significantly more abundant in the younger age groups; on the other hand its older generation is disproportionately weaker than that of the general population.

And with the growth of geographic exclusion this generational disproportion is still deepening. While the high share of the youngest generation of pre-productive age confirms an assumption about reproductive behaviour, for which a higher birth rate and higher fertility is characteristic, the low share of older age groups and post-production individuals reflects, aside from the different reproduction behaviour, also the worst health status and living conditions of many groups of the Roma population, which contributes to the growth of mortality and its shifting to a lower age, than is typical for the Slovak Republic.

The very small share of older age groups and old-age pensioners in the Roma population indicates that they do not represent a great burden for the pension system.

This fact, however, is not emphasised and is neglected in discourse about the relations of the Roma population and the social system; the connection with poverty benefits is more typically pointed out.

11

R E P O R T O N T H E L I V I N G CO N D I T I O N S O F R O MA H O U S E H O L D S I N S LO VA K I A 2010

Mother tongue and language used in daily life in the roma population In terms of language used, the Roma population in Slovakia can be identified as heterogeneous, or multicultural. This is already evident in the question of the mother tongue.

Exactly one-third of the surveyed Roma population gave Slovak as their mother tongue and an additional 12% gave Hungarian. However, the highest representation was, naturally enough, in the Romani language, which more than half of the entire set declared as their mother tongue (55 %). And a comparison with the situation five years ago did not reveal any significant shifts in this regard.

Empirical data suggest that the spatial segregation of the Roma population probably also has an impact on language segregation, because in the surveyed segregated settlements the dominant language of daily household use was predominately Romani – unlike the other two types of settlements. In comparison with Roma living diffused, those in the segregated settlements declared Romani as their first language of daily use three times more often. At the same time segregated settlements most often also cited a second language of common communication, with the Roma in comparison with the geographically close general population, a second language was listed a great deal more often.

The data also show that groups of population exist which utilise two languages in daily household use, however neither of them is Slovak. Many Roma children from segregated (and separated) settlements thus can have problems in education due to the lack of opportunity to hear Slovak in common use at home. The mother tongue and the language of daily household use should therefore be very carefully considered when selecting a specific school (according to the language used for teaching), but also when testing prior to entry to primary school or deciding about being assigned to a special school. Children can fail when testing because of the language used, not because of mental disability or insufficient general foundations and skills. At the same time it is necessary to emphasise that also in connection with knowledge of languages, an adapted and an available system of nursery schools appears to be a very important component of preparation for school attendance for many groups of Roma children.

Migration and exclusion relating to housing

12

On the basis empirical data regarding relocation it is possible in conclusion to state that the spatial mobility of the Roma population connected with a change of place of residence is in no way particularly high in an overall view.

More the opposite, as the majority of Roma remain in their municipality of origin, meaning that Roma living segregated and separated are still more “attached” to the place of their birth. But let’s remember that even the geographically close general population did not have a high share of relocation within the municipality and migration to the municipality.

If the Roma population does relocate, this is most often only one time and within the municipality itself – in connection with independence or for other reasons.

At the same time Roma recorded, in comparison with the geographically close general population, more repeated relocations within a municipality and more migrations to a municipality. In regard to migration to the current place of residence, this predominately involved migration from another municipality in the same district or directly from a neighbouring municipality; even another district in the same region was found a lot less in responses and another region or from abroad was completely rare.

Reasons for relocating are predominately associated with family and the stages of family life, such as getting married or commencing cohabitation with a partner, relocating with parents, gaining independence from parents or for other family reasons, such as, for example, divorce of loss of parents, etc. Reasons for relocating other than family had about a one-third prevalence, and among these were loss of a flat or eviction, obtaining a flat from a municipality or for better living conditions.

From a number of comparisons of the type of previous and present settlement a stronger tendency toward spatial exclusion was evident over integration of the Roma, particularly in the post-revolution years and involving reasons other than family reasons for moving. But for more strongly worded statements it would be necessary to conduct special empirical research.

The tracking of current migration indicates a relatively broad experience among Roma households with work abroad; it was shown to have minimally an equal or a higher range of work experience abroad than general households from neighbouring Roma communities.

Material conditions of life: housing and household furnishings In this chapter attention was focused on dwellings, their size, questions of ownership and type of building materials used. Along with the characteristics of the dwelling itself, the level of its furnishings was also monitored, as well as access to water, method of waste disposal and sources of hot water used. On the basis of the data, it can be stated that more than half of all Roma households lived in free-standing brick houses. An additional 11% of households lived in brick houses with two

R E P O R T O N T H E L I V I N G CO N D I T I O N S O F R O MA H O U S E H O L D S I N S LO VA K I A 2010

or three flats. More than 20% of households lived in flats in residential homes, and the majority of them lived in residential blocks with more than ten flats. Some 16% of Roma households lived in non-standard forms of dwelling, as in a house from wood or an abode from various materials. Although in comparison with 2005 rather fewer households were recorded as living in shacks and wooden houses (which could indicate the running process of building of municipal rental flats within Programmes for the development of housing), in the course of five years no dramatic changes occurred from the viewpoint of structure of Roma households by type of dwelling. The significant lack of space for living and crowded conditions is a part of the life of no small part of the Roma population in all types of settlements. In terms of the number of rooms, it’s possible to say that in 2010 surveyed Roma households lived on average in smaller dwelling than five years ago.

The majority of Roma households (more than 70%) in 2010 lived in dwellings which belonged to a member of the household or a member of the family. The dominant position of separated households from the viewpoint of share of dwellings in public ownership in 2010 was confirmation of the situation in 2005, when the share of such flats and houses was likely well higher. This fact again can point to the running process of construction of so-called flats of lower standard and relative progress in the solution of the housing problem of the marginalised Roma population.

New data repeatedly confirmed the existence of lingering problems from the viewpoint of access of Roma communities to drinking water. First and foremost, a higher measure of diversification of sources of water in Roma communities was again found in comparison with the geographically close general population. Less than half of Roma households had water from public water mains in their dwelling. The problematic approach to water signifies the fact that external sources of water were not always found near Roma dwellings, and 42% of Roma households which drew water from sources outside of their own dwelling had to go more than 50 metres for it (in comparison with 2005 this share of households increased).

Analysis of data also showed deficiencies in the field of waste management, which can originate either due to a lack of financial resources of Roma households or the different approach of local administration to Roma settlements. Organised collection of waste, whether in the form of collection directly in the residential building or in its proximity, collection from a household container or from a common container for households was reported by up to 100% of general households in the geographic proximity, but only 85% of Roma households.

In the great majority of Roma households (92%) electric energy was the main source of lighting, with the most

often used in households living diffused and the least in segregated settlements. Access to electrical energy, however, was often interrupted and also for longer time periods: nearly 30% of them did not have electricity for two months, 12% had to live without electricity for three months, more than a third of Roma households with an interrupted supply remained without electricity for four or more months.

In the study the furnishings of households were also monitored through the presence, or absence, of a set of long-term consumer goods. More than two-thirds of Roma households could not afford the Internet and a computer, half could not afford to acquire an automatic washing machine, 23% did not have a telephone available due to insufficient finances, and approximately 14% did not have a refrigerator. On the basis of these data it’s possible to state that Roma households are often located in unfavourable living conditions defined by the absence of necessary furnishings.

Health status and accessibility of health care On the basis of the subjective opinions of respondents (the occurrence of chronic illnesses and its implication were ascertained on the basis of self-evaluation of respondents; that is, no expert assessment was involved) the occurrence of chronic illnesses in the Roma population age 6+ years was higher in 2010 than in 2005, and was so on the level of the entire set of surveyed persons, as well as on the level of the individual groups defined according to spatial integration of the households in which they lived. The gap between the Roma and the geographically close general population, however, remained more or less unchanged – the occurrence of chronic illnesses was higher for the general population.

But with comparisons through individual generations differences did appear: in the youngest generation chronic illnesses were approximately the same for the Roma and the general population, but for the middle generation they were higher in the Roma population and for those older than age 55 years chronic illnesses were significantly higher among the Roma. Such a result signifies the faster growth and earlier occurrence of chronic and long-term illnesses in the Roma population. This is also similar for a comparison of the three Roma settlement types – in the oldest generation chronic illnesses occur most often among those living segregated and separated. The poor living conditions in segregated settlements, probably also supported by a less consistent approach to personal health and worse access to health care, is expressed at a higher age in the significantly higher occurrence of chronic illness of their residents.

13

R E P O R T O N T H E L I V I N G CO N D I T I O N S O F R O MA H O U S E H O L D S I N S LO VA K I A 2010

Common illnesses or health problems which are not of a chronic character occurred more often than chronic problems in the Roma population: they related to more than half of the surveyed set (53%), similarly as in the set of the geographically close general population (52%).

These most commonly occurred among individuals living in segregated settlements (55%), least among those living in diffused households (49%). Half of the Roma population (51%) reported that they had to interrupt their daily activities as a consequence of common health problems – they had to stop going to work, school or had to stop performing other common daily activities.

Approximately only half of the Roma population saw a doctor with each medical problem. The most common reason in the Roma population for not seeing a doctor was the conviction that the given medical problem did not require one. Such an opinion was found in one-third of those who saw a doctor only occasionally or never (33%). Approximately one-fifth (22%) opted to wait for the spontaneous improvement of health status. The third most common reason was insufficient finances, which pertained to 18%. The unfavourable financial situation as a barrier to seeing a doctor upon the occurrence of a medical problem is found most often in separated settlements (20%), and it played the smaller role among Roma living diffused (14%).

In the case of seeing a doctor, a great majority (85%) were prescribed medicines which had to be bought at a pharmacy. Among those who saw a doctor in 2010 were 23% who didn’t acquire the prescribed medicines at all or who acquired only some of them. This related to one-quarter of those surveyed in segregated settlements. The most common reason for such an approach was a lack of money. The reply “I couldn’t afford so much money for medicine” was selected by more than half (57%) of those who were prescribed medicine but didn’t acquire them (all or none).

Expenditures associated with seeing a doctor thus represented a burden for a household, either as payment for transport in the case of having to travel a large distance or payments for medicines and the like. From the surveyed Roma population 20% reported that they paid nothing for medicines. On the other hand, one-fifth paid from EUR 4 to EUR 6 and one-third reported that their expenditures were around EUR 10 or more. Lower expenditures most often occurred with people from segregated settlements. A sum of EUR 10 or more was paid in particular by Roma living in households which are diffused in majority environments – the share of those persons here was significantly higher than among persons from separated and segregated settlements.

14

Education and expenditures on education In the part of the Roma population which at the time of the study no longer attended any school in the educational system, low education predominated. Nearly one-fifth of Roma (19%) ended their education without finishing a standard primary school, and nearly three-fifths of them had finished standard primary school (60%). A total of 17% of the relevant Roma population successfully continued in further study at a secondary school.

The most abundant category here was made up of individuals with finished secondary school or vocational school (15%) and those with finished secondary school with a school-leaving certificate added only a small share (2%), similarly as with holders of a university education (0.3%). The remaining nearly 5% of the surveyed subset attended in their preparation for a profession some type of special school. Men and women showed certain differences in terms of degree of achieved education.

Those who did not continue on to secondary school in their studies occurred significantly more often among Roma women. Differences are also evident in the representations of the higher degrees of education: the gender difference in the share of persons with a finished secondary education was more than 9 percentage points to the disadvantage of Roma women. The educational structure of the surveyed Roma women can as a whole be evaluated as moderately lagging behind the educational structure of men.

Pupils from common primary schools predominated (72%) among the part of the Roma population which at the time of the study had not yet finished the educational process; 15% of Roma pupils and students attended a special primary school and 3.6% a special class.

In other words, nearly 19% of Roma children were at the primary school level of education in a “special education programme”. Among the higher levels of education, the most represented from among the Roma population still in the school system were those attending a secondary vocational school (5%), while secondary school with a school-leaving certificate had half that share (2.6%).

A comparison of literacy in the Roma population, for all age groups, with the geographically close general population reveals an alarming disparity in the results of the educational process. Special schools and classes at the primary level were most often attended by Roma children from segregated settlements; on the other hand, among children from households living diffuse, this share only half as high.

On the basis of the study data nursery school attendance was significantly smaller for Roma children versus children from the geographically close general population.

Some groups of children were lagging 3-4-times behind, as for example, in a comparison with current preschoolers

R E P O R T O N T H E L I V I N G CO N D I T I O N S O F R O MA H O U S E H O L D S I N S LO VA K I A 2010

age 3-4 years or age 5-6 years. Less than one-third of Roma children age 5-6 years attended nursery school, while from the general population this was nearly four-fifths. The schooling of Roma children decreased with a growth in spatial segregation. On the whole, according to the study data, it’s as if the very group of children who most need nursery school prior to entry to primary school actually utilise it the least. Reasons for non-attendance of nursery school were a lack of finances, the conviction that the child was too immature for nursery school, but also – particularly in segregated environments – the absence of such a facility in the surroundings and the unwillingness of parents to send a child to a school.

With school attendance there are always associated certain costs for households whose amount derives from the number of children in the household, the type of school attended, its distance from the home, etc. The financial demand of items associated with compulsory school attendance and other forms of study strongly resonate among Roma households. It was shown that the average monthly sum of costs for education in Roma households thus represented EUR 23, and the median value was EUR 14. The highest average monthly expenditures were in separated settlements (EUR 27), the lowest in segregated settlements (EUR 19). Half of households with children at primary school stated in the survey that they are capable of covering the expenditures for the education of their children only with difficulties or with great difficulties. The highest share of households with such problems came from segregated settlements, where up to 65% of households said that they experienced such difficulties or great difficulties.

Exclusion from the labour market Study data from the field of characteristic standing of the Roma population on the labour market brought a number of general conclusions. The measured level of unemployment of the Roma population is significantly higher (up to seven times higher) than in the surveyed geographically close general population; on the basis of selfdeclaration of unemployment this even more.

Higher unemployment and lower employment in the case of subjective self-reporting as values calculated by the methodology of selected survey of the labour force indicates that for part of the Roma population the absence of employment is synonymous with unemployment. But this could also indicate the broader connection of the Roma population to informal segments of the labour market.

Employment of the Roma population in a relatively large volume takes place outside of the official labour market and also in the framework of the official is made up of a large part outside of standard forms of employment (short duties, seasonal or casual work, self-em-

ployment and the like). The share of classic full-time employment was significantly lower as in the geographically close general population. Within the scope of classic employment, less qualified work predominated in which it can be assumed that also with low wages. If Roma also obtain a job, this predominately involves low quality work and weak social and job protections.

Upon determining the vast and deep exclusion of the Roma population from the labour market the main reason expressed was insufficient employment opportunities, which for a great part follow from the lack of qualifications for the needs of the labour market, and could also be the result of discrimination and unequal treatment. Ethnic membership was repeatedly shown to be a strong differentiating agent – the differences versus the general population were huge in many indicators despite the geographically nearby environment. Among other differentiating agents it is necessary to mention sex and to a certain measure type of settlement; to a certain measure because indicators worsened with the level of spatial exclusion, unfavourable values (high unemployment and low employment), however, were found in all three compare Roma environments.

Large differences were also recorded on the basis of education and age; age, however, did not play such a strong role with employment or unemployment of the Roma population as in the case of the general population. A comparison of unemployment of the youngest and the adult population came out for the general set two-times higher on the side of the youngest and with the Roma population the measure of unemployment was approximately the same level from entry to the labour market throughout an adult lifetime.

Education emerged from the analysis as a strong differentiation agent. But the “benefit” of higher education which is reflected in the resulting standing on the labour market, played a less significant role as with the general population. The Roma probably face significant difficulties with searching for qualified work also with achieving higher education; unemployment of the Roma is very high also with higher degrees of education.

And in terms of gender, the unemployment of women was lower than with the general than in the Roma population, but for the Roma set for both sexes the measure of unemployment was well higher than the average for the general population. Despite the high share of Roma women outside of the labour market (and reciprocally the smaller measure of economic activity), they also predominately and more often end up in the category of the unemployed as a labour force (and comparisons with Roma men and women from the general population). This is the opposite with employment – this is for women of both compared populations lower than for men, but in the case of Roma women the lag behind men is much greater (up to half ).

15

R E P O R T O N T H E L I V I N G CO N D I T I O N S O F R O MA H O U S E H O L D S I N S LO VA K I A 2010

The recorded differences in the overall economic activities are in comparison with five years age only very small; the share of working further remained only very small in the surveyed Roma population, and conversely, the share of unemployed again very high, despite the number of programmes declared as support for Roma employment. The year-on-year changes are for the surveyed part of the Roma community only very small, testimony of which is the ineffective existing programmes in relation to the given goal.

A comparison of the living conditions of Roma households with a working member and without such a member pointed to a more favourable situation for households which have one or more members working.

At the same time nearly all of the monitored indicators had a better result for households with two or more working members versus those in which only one member worked. The study data clearly confirmed that exclusion from the labour market increases the probability of such households falling into the risk of poverty, increases the danger of material deprivation and lowers the quality of life of their members. Roma households are in this regard, in comparison with the geographically close general population, significantly worse, and in the end even a working wage in Roma households is not enough to overcome this huge lag in level of living.

Standard of living of roma households – incomes, financial difficulties and deprivation in consumption

16

In this chapter we offered a look at three selected aspects of standard of living – the income situation, deprivation in the area of consumption and the occurrence of arrears.

Total incomes of Roma households are on a significantly lowerlevel than the incomes of the geographically close general population. The highest incomes were in households living diffused, the lowest in households from segregated settlements. Differences in total incomes between the individual subsets, however, were not significant – in comparison with differences between Roma and the geographically close general population. It was confirmed that the total income per capita in Roma households is significantly differentiated by the number of working members (a higher number working leads to a higher income). Another differentiating factor is the number of children to age 6 years and to age 18 years, where a growth in the number of children meant a decline in per capita income.

The benefit in material need, which is drawn by every other Roma household, played an important role among social transfers. For a comparison – in the set of the geographically close general population this was 4% of households. The housing allowance, which represents an

important supplement to the minimal income, was drawn by 58% of households on the benefit in material need. This share strongly varied in the individual types of settlements – the highest was in diffused settlements (77%), the lowest in segregated settlements (48%). The activation allowance, to which citizens living in material need and those appraised along with them have a claim, has an important function in the system of minimum income.

A total of 30% of Roma in the productive age of 16-54 years (inclusive) who lived in households drawing the benefit in material need received this allowance. Most of them were among Roma from segregated settlements (37%).

The protection allowance is drawn by 3% of Roma age 1654 years who lived in households on the benefit in material need. It appears that only a portion of the entitled population uses the possibility of supplementing the minimum social income. Among the family benefits the most commonly used are the child bonus (26% of Roma age 18 years and more) and the parental allowance (12% of Roma age 18 years and older).

A significant portion of Roma households is exposed to the risk of deprivation in the field of consumption. Only not quite one-fifth could afford meat (or the vegetarian equivalent) every other day, and not quite one-tenth could afford new seasonal clothing. The possibility of accumulating savings of EUR 300 occurred only very rarely in Roma households (not quite 6%). Data on the occurrence of arrears for regular purchases or services associated with housing indicate a great vulnerability. The geographically close general population showed in the given indicators a significantly lower danger of deprivation and financial difficulties.

Extreme deprivation and subjective evaluation of the living situation versus work and income Data regarding both subjects which formed the contents of this chapter devoted to the subjective opinions about the actual situations likewise indicated the bad living conditions of a broad group of Roma households who in many ways lag behind the situation of the geographically close general households and rapidly grows worse with spatial exclusion. With all of the monitored characteristics a very close connection was expressed with incomes which a household has available and with the work intensity of the household.

In relation to extreme deprivation in the form of the defined situation when a household really does not have food for children, more than half of the surveyed Roma households had experienced this in reality, and for an absolute majority it occurred repeatedly. In contrast to the result from geographically close general households, this type of deprivation occurred sometimes in one-tenth, and

R E P O R T O N T H E L I V I N G CO N D I T I O N S O F R O MA H O U S E H O L D S I N S LO VA K I A 2010

7% experienced it repeatedly. According to the analysis carried out, it seems as if an income lower than EUR 100 per household member was threatening for the feeding of children. At the same time, households experiencing this situation repeatedly belonged predominately to the category of those who did not have any work income or only a very low income. These households were therefore strongly dependent on social benefits, and if such benefits are not adjusted to a sufficient amount, the danger increases that children will go hungry. In relation to public policies, the facts obtained urge at least two principle recommendations. Primarily, there is a need in the interest of eliminating poverty to promote accessibility of the more quality involvement of members of deprived families in the official labour market; if the state is not capable of providing this, then social benefits must be set at a level which doesn’t mean an increased risk of children going hungry.

Large differences in the real and the estimated needed income appear with a comparison between the Roma and the geographically close general households, and do so in all three groups by experience with the situation of lack of food for children. Real income was for the general households on average two to three times higher, with estimated income deeded for normal survival the difference was in the given sums calculated per household member on the level of EUR 200 to EUR 300.

Specifically, Roma households without the experience of a lack of food for children estimated the needed income per member in the amount of EUR 236, and for the same general households this was EUR 520; on the other hand Roma households with repeated occurrence of the situation of not having enough food for children gave the needed income per member as EUR 178, and geographically close general households gave EUR 372. Demands of Roma households for income emerged from the study as significantly more modest than the demands of general households (they also evaluated the situation more positively even with lower incomes). Whether this is a consequence of the lower expenditures for life or the more modest needs of Roma households, possi-

bly still other reasons; for this the quantitative study carried out is unable to offer any answer.

The same associations as with a shortage of food for children also appeared with the remaining two situations of deprivation, when a household has no way to warm up food or to heat the dwelling. The share of households which repeatedly experienced all three monitored situations was in the surveyed Roma households significantly higher than in the general households. It was nearly 30% (even up to 40% among residents of segregated settlements), and from the geographically close general households this was less than 5%. In contrast, households which had not experienced even once any of the extreme deprived situations formed on average 38% of Roma households and nearly 89% of the general households. While geographically close general households were from the viewpoint of extreme deprivation relatively homogeneous (they experienced it only marginally) Roma households were divided into approximately three equal groups. One part didn’t know any of the three monitored situations; a second part met repeatedly with all three shortage situations, and a third part moved somewhere in between.

With assessment of the development of the financial situation for the past three years a more favourable result was obtained in 2010 than in 2005, even despite the financial crisis, which peaked right at this time in Slovakia.

Behind the more negative evaluation of the period 2002 to 2005 versus the period 2007 to 2010 with great probability was probably the slashing in social benefits which occurred at the start of 2004 and which in a principle way changed the financial situation of many households in deep poverty. In the context of the real amount of social incomes (with many groups of households ultimately calculated as under EUR 100 per member) it appears as essential to derive each proposed change in the system of benefits from a detailed analysis of the living situation of threatened groups and the potential impacts of such changes on the functioning and security of those households and their members. In the opposite case, changes could in the end consequence mean a violation of the basic rights of children, among which is the right to sufficient nourishment.

17

01

Introduction

The transformation of society during the past two decades has not meant an improvement in the quality of life for all groups of citizens in Slovakia. On the contrary, measures aimed at stabilisation and restructuralisation of the economy have been reflected in the deterioration of many standard of living indicators in a number of groups, even during times of economic growth. Marginalised Roma communities in particular have had to face specific problems and barriers in the field of human development.

The so-called Roma question has become during the past two decades one of the key subjects of political debate in Slovakia, a subject of public policy interventions, and has also become a subject of great interest to the European Union and others abroad. A number of studies (e.g. Vašečka – Repová – Džambazovič, 2000; Poverty of the Roma, 2002; UNDP, 2006) have identified the Roma as a group that is endangered by poverty and social exclusion. Strategic government documents, for example, the National Action Plan for Social Inclusion (NAPs/INCL) 2004 – 2006, National Report on Strategies for Social Protection and Social Inclusion for the years 2006 – 2008, National Report on Strategies for Social Protection and Social Inclusion for the years 2008 – 2010, have also characterised the Roma as the group most threatened by poverty and social exclusion. These documents point out that in addition to regional disparities in measures of poverty, unemployment, average income, as well as indicators of education and health status, inequalities between the standing of the majority population and socially excluded and marginalised groups of the Roma population are also manifested in Slovakia. Members of these groups, for many reasons (both objective and subjective), do not have sufficient conditions and opportunities for full participation in the economic and cultural life of the society. In the last decade, in reaction to the worsening situation of the Roma minority and not inconsiderable pressure from abroad requiring Slovakia to undertake targeted pro-Roma measures (originally in view of the preaccession process and the unprecedented exodus of Roma abroad), group-targeted support supplementing universal social measures also began gradually being applied in the framework of public policies. In this period the expression “marginalised Roma communities” (denoting a group of poor and marginalised Roma) was introduced in the scope of public policies and was applied as a priority for the use of EU funds (the so-called horizontal priority MRC). Many projects financed (though not exclusively) from pre-accession and post-accession EU structural funds were also carried out in this period. Be-

sides social work, these were focused primarily on training activities, on the retrieval of “lost” work habits for longterm unemployed Roma, and the like. Projects with the most tangible results in this period were carried out particularly in the area of housing development, but a great deal of attention was also devoted to a wide spectrum of activities intended as support for employment and employability through the form of active policies on the labour market.

Many projects in the scope of EU structural funds were focused on the creation of transitional jobs programmes, protected workshops or social and active enterprises which employed and should have “activated” long-term unemployed Roma. The results, however, could not in a broader measure meet the expectations for the existing bad socioeconomic situation of many regions and for the overall neo-liberal restructuralisation, which significantly influenced regions of Slovakia characterised by a strongly segmented labour market.

One of the most limiting factors of the successes of such enterprises were, according to some analysts, the structural conditions of the individual regions of Slovakia, the country’s socio-historical heritage and the group ethnocultural relationships.

Although empirical facts about persisting Roma poverty and exclusion are accepted almost generally among experts and the professional public, no agreement exists about the reasons for this situation. Culture as the causal variable of Roma problems is often found in two alternating forms. One of them is the concept of the “traditional Roma culture,” in the scope of which it is assumed that the Roma as an ethnic group have a different, premodern value system, as well as customs and institutions distinct from the majority. This value system is then considered as the reason for Roma “inadaptability” to modern society, which causes their exclusion and poverty. This “traditional Roma culture” often alternates with the concept of the “culture of poverty”. This also derives from the assumption that the residents of socially excluded localities are bearers of a specific cultural model which originated in the process of adaptation to long-term poverty and to social and spatial exclusion, and as a reaction to these realities is reproduced from generation to generation, creating a specific “system”.

Various critics of argumentation of this type, however, point out that the “culture of poverty” does not have sufficient analytical validity, because the individual characteristics ascribed to the “culture of poverty” of the Roma are themselves almost incompatible.

Mixed within them are structural reasons (e.g. unem-

19

R E P O R T O N T H E L I V I N G CO N D I T I O N S O F R O MA H O U S E H O L D S I N S LO VA K I A 2010

ployment) with socio-pathological phenomena (e.g. drugs and alcohol) and with momentary responses to an emerging situation (e.g. migration for work). Also unclear is the fact that the attributes of this concept are thus created by observed empirical facts of a material character (e.g. lack of means), as well as cognitive-psychological traits like the herd-mentality, orientation on the present and the inability to save and to plan (Abu Ghosh, 2008). That’s why it seems that the concept of a “culture of poverty”, even though on an empirical level it characterises relatively exactly the current state of exclusion (not only) of Roma marginalised communities, has only limited significance for the purposes of policy and measures of social inclusion.

Social exclusion is thus technically the key concept for EU policies as well as for domestic policy cohesion. In the EU approach, social exclusion is perceived as a multidimensional phenomenon which in itself includes income poverty as well as unemployment, access to education, information and day care and health care facilities, living conditions and social participation. The definition of social exclusion is based on the “inability to utilise the level of participation in society which the majority society has guaranteed”. Exclusion is defined as a process through which certain individuals or groups are pushed to the margins of society and away from full participation in the life of the society due to their poverty, lack of fundamental competencies, opportunities for life-long education or as a result of some other form of discrimination (COM(2008) 0412 final). It thus distances them from work, earnings and educational opportunities as well as from social and community networks and activities.

The reasons for exclusion can at the same time rest on the level of the society as a whole or on the level of the community, household or even the individual. A prerequisite for the elimination of poverty and social exclusion is ensuring access for all people to the resources, rights and

services needed for participation in society and wiping away all forms of discrimination which lead to exclusion.

The publication An EU Framework for National Roma Integration Strategies up to 2020 from 6 April 2011 created a new framework and opportunity for the prevention of social exclusion and integration of the Roma population (on the basis of the Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions). National strategies should create a framework which combines the question of fundamental human rights with the question of human development. In such a framework, specific interventions which would help improve the situation of the Roma should then be implemented on the regional and local levels. The document states that “Many of the estimated 10-12 million Roma in Europe face prejudice, intolerance, discrimination and social exclusion in their daily lives. They are marginalised and live in very poor socio-economic conditions.” The Communication further states that: “Determined action, in active dialogue with the Roma, is needed both at national and EU level. The primary responsibility for that action rests with public authorities.” The document perceives the social and economic integration of the Roma as a two-way process, “which requires a change of mindsets of the majority of the people as well as of members of the Roma communities. First of all, Member States need to ensure that Roma are not discriminated against but treated like any other EU citizens with equal access to all fundamental rights as enshrined in the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights”. In addition, it postulates that it is “needed to break the vicious cycle of poverty which is carried from one generation to the next” (EU, 2011).

The empirical UNDP survey mapping the living conditions of Roma households in Slovakia, carried out in 2010 and from whose final report you now have the opportunity to read, emerged from an understanding of social ex-

BOX 1.1 The Treaty of Roma from 1957, upon the creation of the EC, focused on a set of policies falling under the heading of social cohesion. Specifically, this involved policies aimed at the free movement of migrating workers, social security and the creation of the European Social Fund.

The first program focused on the social sphere was ratified by the EU Council in 1974 and concentrated on improving the living and working conditions of vulnerable groups. Twelve years later, with the revision of the Treaty of Rome (Single European Act, 1986) the importance of strengthening social cohesion within the European Community was emphasised (new articles 158-161). The Community Charter of Fundamental Social Rights was approved in 1989. Subsequently, the Treaty of Amsterdam (1997) also included an obligation regarding social policy and a chapter on employment. The Lisbon Strategy from March 2000 also listed increasing social cohesion in society among its goals for the coming 10 years. The European Council also returned to the social agenda in 2008, when it accepted proposals for renewal of the social agenda and specified goals and priorities in the battle against discrimination and overcoming poverty and social exclusion (COM(2008) 0412 final). The declaration of the year 2010 as The European Year for Combating Poverty and Social Exclusion (COM(2008) 0412 final) should have been an opportunity for reworking policies in this area. In connection with the European Year for Combating Poverty and Social Exclusion (2010) the strategy Europe 2020 set out in the scope of the main initiative the European Platform for Combating Poverty a target “to ensure economic, social and territorial cohesion so as to raise awareness and to recognise the fundamental rights of people experiencing poverty and social exclusion, enabling them to live in dignity and take an active part in society” (Europe..., 2010, pg. 20). The specific framework for overcoming marginalisation and barriers to human development of Roma is created by the Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions designated as An EU Framework for National Roma Integration Strategies up to 2020 from 6 April 2011. In this document national governments are challenged to prepare their own national strategies for integration of the Roma population.

20

R E P O R T O N T H E L I V I N G CO N D I T I O N S O F R O MA H O U S E H O L D S I N S LO VA K I A 2010

clusion as a complex, multidimensional, multilayered and dynamic concept. In it, attention was devoted to all key areas of inclusion of the Roma, such as housing, health, education and the labour market, but also to the income situation and material deprivation. Empirical data from 2010 documents the lingering of a number of inequalities, for example, in education, in the accessibility of health care or in access to many products and services generally. At the same time, it is known that social exclusion has a tendency to be reproduced from generation to generation in a cycle of deprivation.

Data on the living conditions of Roma communities have a great significance for the needs of social policy.

They are necessary because measures can then be targeted and so that it is possible to quantify their impacts on marginalised groups of citizens. The project, carried

out in cooperation between the United Nations Development Program and the Ministry of Labour, Social Affairs and Family of the Slovak Republic, and one of whose outputs is this report, consists of a series of quantitative as well as qualitative studies which will help to obtain a complex picture about the development of living conditions of socially excluded Roma communities.

We are convinced that solutions aimed at genuine integration and improving the living conditions of Roma do not consist only in finding a suitable methodological approach, but that they primarily consist in the principle of political choice, which is in its essence a moral choice. This rests, for example, on broad support of a range of policies reducing social inequalities and policies creating equal conditions for all groups of citizens for permanently sustainable human development in Slovakia.

BOX 1.2 Social policies belong to those political agendas which are in the competence of nation states, but in the framework of the open method of coordination (OMC) Member States are responsible for the transfer of general EU goals into their own national action plans. National strategies for social protection and social inclusion were developed in three areas – for social inclusion, pensions and medical and long-term care.

Every three years national reports have been submitted to the European Commission, with the last covering the years 2008 – 2010. Slovakia has set out the following disadvantaged groups and priorities for the area of social inclusion: On the basis of analysis of the experience and development of the situation in the previous period the National Report concentrated on (similarly as the Decade of Inclusion of the Roma Population 2005-2015) four areas of measures (education, health, housing, work) focused on disadvantaged groups of citizens, those most threatened by poverty and exclusion – i. e. particularly on children, youths, young adults, families with children, the unemployed (the longterm unemployed in particular), people with health disabilities, marginalised Roma communities, the homeless, people released from imprisonment and drug addicts and other addicts (National Report..., 2008).

21

02

Methodological information and a description of the research sample

Good research frameworks have already been established for monitoring the living conditions of Roma communities in Slovakia. UNDP sample surveys (2005, 2010, 2011) derive from the so-called sociographic mapping of Roma communities in Slovakia (Atlas of Roma Communities in Slovakia 2004), which were based on the assumption that the marginalised Roma population lives in certain spatial enclaves. Such an approach to research is not in conflict with principles embedded in the Constitution of the Slovak Republic and is in accordance with standards for the protection of personal data, because sociographic mapping does not investigate the ethnic identity of individuals and does not collect personal data about individuals, but instead only works as a kind of “inventory” of settlements.

2.1. Research procedure and DATA collection Sociographic mapping of Roma communities was carried out in the year 2004, and a total of 1,068 municipalities and 1,573 Roma settlements from all of Slovakia were mapped (one municipality could have more than one settlement). Such a method of mapping provided detailed information about Roma settlements, on the basis of which it was possible for UNDP sample surveys to divide Roma settlements into three basic classes according to the degree of integration with the majority population – segregated, separated and diffused. An equal number of districts (of various numbers – containing approximately between 40 and 120 households) were created for each of these classes, from which 30 sites in each class were selected for data collection using random proportional selection. The final number of data collection sites for the sample of Roma households was 90.1 A sample from the general population served as a control set in the study for the purpose of comparing certain socioeconomic and other variables. Because the Roma population is not equally distributed within Slovakia and because of the great regional differences, it was more appropriate to compare certain socioeconomic data not with the general population of Slovakia, but with the general population living in the geographic vicinity of Roma settlements. The basis for selection of data col-

lection sites in the sample from the general population was the 90 districts in municipalities neighbouring those from which data on the Roma were collected. These were classified as urban (more than 5,000 residents) and rural (less than 5,000 residents), and 45 data collection sites were randomly selected from among them. At these data collection sites interviewers selected households by randomly strolling through and then visiting the selected households. Even though some of the households identified themselves as Roma, or during the interview could be identified as Roma, they were left in the selected sample of the general population.2 The UNDP carried out its “field work” for the sample survey in the months November and December 2010 (specifically 22.11. – 27.12. 2010). Data collection was organised by the agency TNS Slovakia via face-to-face interviews between interviewers and respondents on the basis of a structured questionnaire. The minimum time necessary for conducting one interview was approximately 60 minutes, though longer with larger numbers of household members. Interviewers were trained in Poprad and in Bratislava, and the number of trained interviewers was 34. The trained interviewers did not go to segregated locations by themselves but were accompanied by Roma activists, of whom there were nine.

The average number of questionnaires assigned to one interviewer was 31. The survey was conducted in a total of 246 municipalities.

A managed household, defined in the manual as an individual or a group of people who either are or are not related and who live together as an independent group in that they have a common organisation for their household economy (this means that they share or support one another in a single family budget) represented one selected unit. At each of the selected data collection sites 8 households were randomly selected, which meant 240 households for each of the three classes of Roma settlements or types of living and 360 households for the geographically close general population.

The questionnaire contained 8 modules and was focused on information about the household as well as information about the individual members of the household. Information about the household was provided by the household member who was identified as the head of the household. Information about members of the household was obtained directly from individual mem-

1 For detailed information about the methodological preparations for the survey, see the manuscript (Evans, 2005).

2 The questionnaire did not include a direct question about ethnicity; however, it did enquire about the native language of the respondents. In the set of individuals of the general geographic vicinity of the population, for example, 2% of respondents declared the Romani language as their mother tongue.

23

R E P O R T O N T H E L I V I N G CO N D I T I O N S O F R O MA H O U S E H O L D S I N S LO VA K I A 2010

Table 2.1 Numbers of households and individuals for the monitored subsets

Number of households Share of households in % Number of individuals Share of individuals in % Number of families Share of families in %

Sets of Roma population Segregated Separated Diffused 240 244 33.2 33.7

239 33.1

723 100.0

360 —

1 277 35.3

1 232 34.1

1 105 30.6

3 614 100.0

1 060 —

263 32.8

272 33.9

268 33.4

803 100.0

363 —

bers; information was provided by a parent or the head of household only in regard to small children or in the case of absence of a member.

2.2. Description of the research sample The above-mentioned selection process managed in the scope of field data collection to capture almost exactly the planned number of households. The following subchapter offers information of a double type: it zooms in on the size of individual research sets of the Roma population and the control set of general population from the geographically close surroundings, as well as on their composition according to basic demographic characteristics.

At the same time it is necessary immediately in the introduction to again emphasise that the group of general households was selected randomly and not limited by membership to the majority population; Roma households and families and individuals who are members of them could have also been a part of the research sample.

2.2.1. The frequency of the researched sets of households, families and individuals After a check and final revision, a total of 1,083 households were included in the analyses and statistical processing. These were households for which a complete questionnaire set – i. e. a questionnaire for the household, for its individual members and the relevant nuclear family – was successfully compiled. The set of Roma households totalled 723 units, and each subset defined by the type of living was represented by approximately an equal number of households – individually this was about 240 households from the groups living segregated, separated and diffused. Relatively speaking, then, each subset represented one-third of the total. The control set of spatially close general population was made up of 360 households.

As is mentioned above, three types of data were collected in each selected household. These were data re-

24

Sets of the geographically close general population

Total

lated to the household as a whole, additional data related to families making up the household, and finally data about the individual members of the household. Thus, three mutually related research sets were created – in addition to the set for households, these was a set for families and a set for individuals.3 In comparison with the frequency of the set of households, the frequency of the set of families changed only a little (Table 2.1). The subset of segregated families grew by 23 units, by 27 for separated families and by 29 units for diffused families. The shares of the compared types of Roma communities therefore remained proportionally balanced – each had approximately a one-third share. In the case of the geographically close general population, the number of families increased in comparison with the number of households by only 3 units. This means that the majority of selected households were identical with a nuclear family; they were not made up of several family units.

In regard to the set of individuals, which was formed by all of the members of the selected households, a total of 3,614 persons were represented in the research sample for the Roma population, of which segregated communities represented 1,277 persons (a 35.3% share), separated 1,232 persons (34.1%) and living diffused 1,105 persons (30.6%). The size of the research set of individuals for the spatially close general population in the end totalled 1,060 respondents.

2.2.2. Composition of the research sets according to selected quantitative characteristics Table 2.2 shows how the set of households and the set of individuals of the Roma and the spatially close general population were composed on the basis of a number of indicators corresponding to the size and composition of surveyed households. It captures in detail the structure of the sets according to the total number of household members, the number of dependent children, the number of children and young people of different

3 The research set of families was the narrowest in terms of content, because for nuclear families only selected social benefits and some incomes and expenses were found within the household. Most of the analyses rest on data for the set of households and the set of individuals.

R E P O R T O N T H E L I V I N G CO N D I T I O N S O F R O MA H O U S E H O L D S I N S LO VA K I A 2010

Table 2.2 Structure of the set of households and individuals for both compared populations according to the number of members of different age categories and definitions (in %) Sets of Roma population

Sets of geographically close general population

Households

Households

Individuals

Individuals

Number of household members: 1 member 2 members 3 members 4 members 5 members 6 members 7 members 8 members 9 members 10 or more members Number of dependent children: no children 1 child 2 children 3 children 4 children 5 children 6 children 7 or more children Number of children to 6 years inclusive: no children 1 child 2 children 3 children 4 children 5 or more children Number of children to 14 years inclusive: no children 1 child 2 children 3 children 4 children 5 children 6 or more children Number of children to 18 years inclusive: no children 1 child 2 children 3 children 4 children 5 children 6 children 7 or more children Number of members to 25 years incl. no members 1 member 2 members 3 members 4 members 5 members 6 members 7 members 8 or more members

2.9 0.6 16.9 12.2 4.9 27.5 14.7 8.8 22.8 17.6 14.1 18.3 17.3 17.3 8.6 12.0 14.4 3.6 8.6 12.0 1.9 6.5 10.4 — 3.6 6.5 0.3 4.6 11.0 — Young children before primary school + pupils and students max. to 25 years 25.9 13.9 62.5 17.3 13.8 17.2 19.6 18.9 14.2 14.4 16.4 3.9 9.8 13.3 1.4 4.4 6.6 0.6 4.6 8.2 0.3 4.0 8.9 — Age interval = 0 to 6 years 49.0 36.9 85.8 23.2 24.0 12.8 14.7 17.6 3.9 9.3 14.2 0.3 2.6 4.6 0.3 1.2 2.7 — Age interval = 0 to 14 years 28.1 15.7 73.1 18.9 15.9 13.9 19.4 19.1 8.9 13.8 16.4 3.1 9.3 13.0 0.8 3.5 5.6 0.3 6.0 14.3 — Age interval = 0 to 18 years 23.5 12.1 65.8 15.5 11.6 16.4 20.1 18.8 12.2 16.0 17.5 3.3 10.2 13.4 1.4 5.1 7.6 0.6 4.7 8.3 0.3 4.9 10.7 — Age interval = 0 to 25 years 15.9 6.7 55.3 12.3 8.2 18.3 18.0 14.7 18.1 19.4 18.7 5.6 13.4 16.2 1.4 7.5 10.1 1.1 5.9 9.3 — 3.5 6.2 0.3 4.1 9.9 —

5.8 18.7 23.2 24.9 14.6 7.4 4.6 — 0.8 — 45.6 20.8 21.6 6.8 3.0 1.3 0.8 — 73.9 18.2 6.7 0.6 0.7 — 59.9 17.4 14.4 5.7 2.0 0.7 — 50.2 19.8 19.0 5.8 3.0 1.3 0.8 — 37.3 20.3 26.6 9.4 2.9 2.6 — 0.8 —

25

R E P O R T O N T H E L I V I N G CO N D I T I O N S O F R O MA H O U S E H O L D S I N S LO VA K I A 2010

Sets of Roma population

Number of working members: no one works 1 member 2 members 3 members 4 or more members

Sets of geographically close general population

Households Individuals Households Individuals Working = on the basis of self-reporting (not according to the Labour Force Survey) 79.9 78.8 38.9 13.3 13.9 27.2 4.1 4.6 25.0 2.1 2.2 5.8 0.6 0.5 3.1

27.8 28.6 30.9 7.5 5.2

Note: Each set for an individual characteristic totals 100%.

age categories and according to the number of working members. All of the indicators used confirmed the different structure of Roma and of geographically close general households and individuals.

Differences in the makeup of the sets representing the Roma population on one hand and the general population on the other are already shown from the viewpoint of household size. While not quite 3% of total Roma households were made up of single-member households, this number was nearly 17% from general households from the nearby vicinity. On the other hand, households with eight or more members represented nearly 15% of the Roma set but only 0.3% of the general set. In the set of Roma households the most numerous group were households with four and with five members (17.6% and 17.3%), while in the general set two-member (27.5%) and then three-member (22.8%) households were the most common.

Similar differences in terms of number of members were also apparent in a comparison of the sets of individuals. Less than one percent of surveyed Roma individuals lived in households consisting of only one member; however among individuals representing the geographically close general population this was nearly 6%.

The share of Roma individuals who lived in large households consisting of eight or more members was 28%, while for the set of the general population only 0.8% of individuals were from such large households.

The Roma set of households and individuals was also notable mainly by a higher number of children without regard to how the “child” was specified, either as dependent on parents or by a certain age limit.

Nearly 26% of Roma households were without dependent children4 at all, while for the general set their share reached 62%. On the opposite side of the quantitative interval the ratio was reversed: up to 13% of surveyed Roma households had five and more dependent children, while in the general set this was only 0.9%. In relation to the set of individuals, the composition here was similar. Only 13.9% of all the surveyed Roma lived in a household where there were no dependent chil-

26

dren; from respondents representing the general population in the geographically close surroundings this number was 45.6%. Or stated otherwise: up to 86.1% of Roma individuals belonged to a household which had at least one dependent child, and from the general set of individuals this figure was 54.4%. And 25.7% of the surveyed set of Roma individuals lived in those households where there were five or more dependent children among the members, but only 2.1% of representatives of the general population lived in such a situation.

The situation with a comparison of the number of children of a certain age proved to totally equal, only with differing proportions. Upon monitoring the presence of children up to six years old, the set of Roma households was divided nearly in half (49% of them did not have any children up to six years old and 51% had at least one child of that defined age), while from general households the share of those without a child to six years old surpassed the four-fifths mark (up to 85.8% of them did not have any child to six years old and 14.2% had at least one such child). While 28.1% of Roma households did not have even one child up to 14 years old, more than 73% of the general sample fell into this category; and again 23.5% of Roma and 65.8% of the general surveyed households did not have a child up to the age of 18 years old.5 When we look at the sets through dependent children up to 25 years of age, 16% of Roma households but 55.3% of the general households had no such member.

With tracking of the number of working members in a household, the proportions between the Roma and the general population samples reversed and became more acute. Up to 80% of the surveyed set of Roma households did not have even one working member, while in the general household sample this figure was half as high – only 38.9%. From the set of Roma individuals nearly 80% lived in a household where not even one member declared himself/herself as working, while from the individuals representing the geographically close general population the share living in households without a working member was not quite 28%. While from the surveyed Roma the largest

4 According to the definition valid in Slovakia, children and young people to age 25 years old who have still not completed preparation for a profession, that is theoretically from birth to completion of study at the first level of university, are considered to be dependent children.

5 The age boundary dividing childhood and adulthood as defined in the Convention on the Rights of the Child (UN General Assembly, 1989).

R E P O R T O N T H E L I V I N G CO N D I T I O N S O F R O MA H O U S E H O L D S I N S LO VA K I A 2010

Table 2.3 Structure of the subsets of Roma households and individuals per number of members of different age categories and definitions (in %) Subset of Roma households Segregated Separated Number of household members: 1 member 2 members 3 members 4 members 5 members 6 members 7 members 8 members 9 members 10+ members Number of dependent children: no children 1 child 2 children 3 children 4 children 5 children 6 children 7+ children Number of children to 6 years: no children 1 child 2 children 3 children 4+ children Number of children to 14 years: no children 1 child 2 children 3 children 4 children 5 children 6+ children Number of children to 18 years: no children 1 child 2 children 3 children 4 children 5 children 6 children 7+ children Number of children to 25 years: no members 1 member 2 members 3 members 4 members 5 members 6 members 7 members 8+ members

Diffused

Subset of Roma individuals Segregated Separated

Diffused

1.7 3.3 3.8 0.3 0.6 10.8 10.2 15.5 4.1 4.1 12.1 14.3 17.6 6.8 8.5 14.6 20.1 18.0 11.0 15.9 20.8 13.9 17.2 19.6 13.8 13.8 13.5 8.8 15.5 16.1 9.6 9.0 7.1 12.6 12.5 6.3 7.8 5.4 9.4 12.3 3.8 4.1 2.9 6.3 7.3 6.7 3.6 3.8 14.4 8.9 Young children before primary school + pupils and students max. to 25 years 22.9 26.6 28.0 12.5 14.9 15.8 17.6 18.5 12.1 14.2 17.9 18.0 23.0 16.1 17.0 15.4 11.9 15.9 16.1 13.6 8.3 13.9 7.1 9.9 18.6 7.9 3.3 2.1 11.3 4.8 5.4 4.1 4.2 9.7 6.7 6.4 4.6 1.2 12.3 10.2 Age interval = 0 to 6 years 43.8 51.7 51.5 32.7 41.0 23.8 22.1 23.8 23.2 23.5 15.8 12.7 15.9 17.7 14.9 10.8 10.3 6.7 16.6 14.4 5.8 3.2 2.1 9.9 6.2 Age interval = 0 to 14 years 24.6 28.7 31.0 13.8 16.8 16.7 20.5 19.8 13.3 17.4 18.3 17.6 22.2 16.5 17.0 14.6 12.7 14.2 15.8 15.9 10.0 10.7 7.1 13.2 14.2 5.4 4.1 0.8 7.4 7.5 10.4 5.7 4.9 20.0 11.3 Age interval = 0 to 18 years 20.4 23.4 26.8 10.6 12.4 12.9 16.4 17.2 9.2 12.3 19.2 19.3 21.8 16.5 18.3 17.5 13.1 17.6 17.7 14.2 9.6 14.3 6.3 11.6 18.8 7.1 4.1 4.2 9.4 5.9 5.8 4.5 3.8 10.4 7.6 7.5 4.9 2.3 14.6 10.6 Age interval = 0 to 25 years 13.8 14.8 19.2 5.8 6.0 9.6 14.8 12.6 6.6 10.0 15.0 17.2 21.8 11.1 14.9 24.2 16.0 18.0 23.1 14.7 13.8 14.8 11.7 15.1 17.8 7.1 9.0 6.3 8.9 11.9 5.8 7.0 5.0 8.1 10.9 4.2 3.7 2.5 6.9 6.7 6.5 2.8 2.9 14.4 7.1

0.8 6.7 11.4 15.6 18.6 11.4 10.8 9.4 5.7 9.7 14.5 15.1 24.3 19.5 11.4 3.3 8.2 3.7 37.3 25.5 20.6 11.2 5.3 16.8 17.2 24.4 17.7 11.3 1.4 11.2 13.4 13.5 22.1 20.9 9.4 7.2 6.6 7.0 8.4 8.2 18.6 18.1 15.6 9.6 8.9 4.8 7.9

27

R E P O R T O N T H E L I V I N G CO N D I T I O N S O F R O MA H O U S E H O L D S I N S LO VA K I A 2010

Number of working members: 0 working 1 member 2 members 3 members 4+ members

Subset of Roma households Subset of Roma individuals Segregated Separated Diffused Segregated Separated Diffused Working = on the basis of self-reporting (not according to Labour Force Survey) 83.3 80.7 75.7 82.9 79.6 73.0 13.3 11.9 14.6 13.9 11.5 16.4 2.5 4.1 5.9 2.2 5.2 6.6 0.8 2.5 2.9 0.9 2.6 3.3 — 0.8 0.8 — 1.1 0.7

Note: Each set for an individual characteristic totals 100 %.

From the surveyed Roma living segregated up to 12.3% lived in households where there were seven or more children, while in the case of Roma living diffused this group was only 3.7%. The share of individuals living in multiple-children families was nearly double for Roma living segregated versus diffused, and this was the case for each age-limited category. A total of 9.9% of segregated and 5.3% of diffused Roma individuals lived in a household with four or more children up to six years old; with six or more children up to age fourteen the shares from among segregated and separated households achieved 20% to 11%; with seven or more children to age 18 these figures were 15% to 7%; and likewise with eight or more members up to 25 years 14% to 8%.

In terms of the number of working members, representation of those without a working member in the structure of the households was the highest in the segregated and lowest in the diffused Roma households (83.3% to 75.7%). From the surveyed individuals living segregated, up to 83% lived in households where no one worked, and among diffused Roma this was 10% less (73%).

For a different composition of the compared sets of households, the average numbers of members for a given category are also shown; Table 2.4 summarises them.

Thus, the average number of members, as well as the number of younger members of households or children, ends up being for the Roma set 2 to 4-times higher than for the set of general households. In all indicators, a continuous growth of average values is also expressed, with a progression from Roma households living diffused through separated communities up through segregated. The average number of working members among in-

group lived in a household where no one worked (78.8%) and then after a large gap was followed by the group living in households with one working member (13.9%), among the general population representatives of households with two working members had the highest occurrence (30.9%) and 28.6% of the set were in households with one working member.

The Roma sets were in structure not only larger in overall household membership but also in the representation of children of different age categories; on the other hand, they also had a significantly smaller share of households and individuals in relation to the number of working members. Thus, the basic makeup of the surveyed sets already strongly indicates the different social, life and work situation of both compared sets of households and their members, which the results of the analyses subsequently confirmed.

And as Table 2.3 shows, differences in the type of housing of Roma communities versus the geographically close general population continue to deepen in many directions.

The more segregated the housing, the more members of the household and at the same time more children and fewer childless households (and fewer individuals living in childless households). In all, 22.9 % of Roma households living segregated had no dependent children, while for households living diffused this figure was 28%; 43.8% of segregated households did not have a child up to six years old, but this was 51.5% for diffused Roma households; the share of households with no child up to 14 years old for the segregated subset was 24.6% and for diffused households 31%; with the age limit up to 18 years old the numbers were 20.4% to 26.8%, respectively.

Table 2.4 Average numbers of members of different age and definition for the compared surveyed sets of households (average numbers)

28

Number of household members Number of dependent children Number of children to 6 years Number of children to 14 years Number of children to 18 years Number of members to 25 years Number of working members

Sets of Roma households Segregated Separated 5.3 2.5 1.1 2.4 2.7 3.3 0.2

Diffused 5.0 2.2 0.9 1.9 2.4 2.9 0.3

Geographically close general households

Total 4.6 1.9 0.9 1.7 2.0 2.6 0.4

5.0 2.2 1.0 2.0 2.4 3.0 0.3

2.9 0.7 0.2 0.5 0.6 0.8 1.1

R E P O R T O N T H E L I V I N G CO N D I T I O N S O F R O MA H O U S E H O L D S I N S LO VA K I A 2010

Graph 2.1 The structure of the set of households for both compared populations according to generational type of household (in %) 0

10

20

30

50

60

70

12.7

Single-generation household

38.9 65.3

Two-generation household

49.2 20.7

Three-generation household Other generational type of household

40

11.3 1.3 0.6

Roma households General households

Note: Single-generation household = an individual or couple and more members, but from one generation; Two-generation household = a parent or parents and a child or children; Three-generation household = one or more representatives of a parental, child and grandparent generation; other generation type of = four generations, or members of an alternating generation.

dividual Roma subsets does not vary much (from 0.2 to 0.4 working members in a household), but in comparison with the general households they were almost four times less.

As the basic description showed, the composition of the surveyed sets of households and individuals for Roma and the general population differed according to all quantitative indicators – Roma sets were distinguished by a higher representation of multi-member and multi-child groups and on the other hand again by a lower representation of groups having working members in the household. The degree of segregation on the basis of housing differences in large households versus the general set from the geographical vicinity deepens even further – segregated environments have on average the largest households.

2.2.3. A comparison of sets of households by cohabiting generations As follows from Graph 2.1, even on the basis of the generational type of household, the structure of the surveyed sets differed. Although households comprising two generations – that is of parents and children – form the most numerous group in both the Roma and general households, in the Roma set there were significantly more of them: 65.3% versus 49.2%. The Roma set also had a broader representation of three-generation households (20.7% versus 11.3%), as well as other generational types of households, that is, those in which members were from four generations or from three but not directly in succession, (for example, grandparents with grandchildren and great-grandchildren – without the parents genera-

tion). Their share in the entire set was effectively minimal: 1.3% of Roma and 0.6% of general households.

The only type of household which was more frequent in the general set from the geographic vicinity was the single generation household, to which nevertheless households with one member were ranked but also those with two or more members all belonging to the same generation (for example, a partner pair, or siblings and the like). These made up 38.9% of the general households and only 12.7% among Roma households.

A look at the makeup of three subsets of Roma households (Table 2.5) showed moderately lower representation from multiple-generation households and a higher share of single-generations in the case of living diffused in comparison with the other surroundings – segregated and separated communities. However, this did not involve large differences (approximately by 5%), so from the viewpoint of generational composition of households, the individual Roma subsets were relatively balanced.

A more detailed quantitative presentation of the research sample and its composition leads to several conclusions even prior to our own analysis. The first is the statement that in the course of field data collection in 2010 the frequencies for the individual surveyed sets of households as set by the methodology worked up by experts at the World Bank in 2005 was successfully fulfilled,6 which enables a comparison to be made for selected indicators with the situation five years ago.7 Accordingly, the sets of individuals created from members of the selected households have sufficient range for the carrying out of classification and calculation of the necessary indicators for different subgroups of Roma and general respondents as defined by age or some other trait. It was

6 The methodology for the selection of data collection sites was developed in 2005 by a team of World Bank consultants under the leadership of Valerie Evans. With the surveys in 2010, as in 2005, the proposed methodological approach was observed (Evans, 2005).

29

R E P O R T O N T H E L I V I N G CO N D I T I O N S O F R O MA H O U S E H O L D S I N S LO VA K I A 2010

Table 2.5 Structure of the subsets of Roma households by generational type (in %)

Single-generation household Two-generation household Three-generation household Other generational type of household Households together

Subsets of Roma households Segregated Separated 10.7 66.7 21.3 1.3 100.0

Diffused 11.9 63.9 23.0 1.2 100.0

Total 15.5 65.3 18.0 1.2 100.0

12.7 65.3 20.7 1.3 100.0

Note: Single-generation household = an individual or couple and more members, but from one generation; Two-generation household = a parent or parents and a child or children; Three-generation household = one or more representatives of a parental, child and grandparent generation; other generation type of = four generations, or members of an alternating generation.

also shown that despite differences in internal composition, the individual surveyed sets of Roma population are sufficiently disparate for the required mutual comparison between the individual environments to be made.

The differences in the composition of the size of the surveyed households (number of members, number of young people, number of children of different age) however, at the same time indicate that with analysis of some basic areas, such as, for example, a module on income and the like, it will be necessary, in addition to the overall data from households, to monitor primarily the calculation per one member.

The research sample is not representative of the entire Roma population but is representative of the Roma population bound by the framework of the selected data collection sites (Atlas of Roma Communities in Slovakia

30

2004). On the basis of sociological suppositions, we assume that this involves that part of the Roma population which is spoken of as “marginalised”.8 The analysis is primarily focused on mutual comparison of individual Roma environments defined by the type of settlement and further for comparison of average values for Roma households and individuals with households and individuals representing the general population from the geographical vicinity of Roma communities. Where the data allows (identical formulation of questions), the situation in the year 2010 is compared with the situation found in 2005. The report is divided into a total of 11 chapters. Aside from the introduction and methodological parts, chapters three through eleven are devoted to their own main subjects; the text concludes with the proposal of measures.

7 The count for the research sets in 2005 was as follows: the three individual subsets of Roma households each had up to 240 surveyed units (together 720 surveyed Roma households) and the set of geographically near general households totaled 355 units. The sets for individuals created by all members of the selected households consisted in the case of segregated Roma communities of 1,361 surveyed units, in separated of 1,167 and in diffused of 1,241 surveyed units (a total of 3,769 Roma individuals); the set made up of members of the general population in the geographic vicinity of Roma communities totaled 1,204 respondents. Overall, a total of 1,075 households and 4,973 individuals were included in the 2005 survey.

8 If in the analysis, in the interest of simplifying the text and interpretation of data, the whole of Roma households or Roma population is spoken of, the information expresses the average value for the three selected Roma environments.

03

Demographic characteristics of the roma population in comparisons

In experts circles in Slovakia it is a generally known fact that Roma do not report their nationality during censuses, or report it only in a limited range (Hojsík, 2009; Mušinka, 2004; Škobla – Leončikas – Štěpánková, 2008; Vaňo, 2001, 2002; Vaňo – Haviarová, 2002; Vašečka, 2002). This is also pointed out in the UNDP reports from the year 2002 or 2006 (UNDP, 2002, 2006). In the 1991 census of people, houses and flats, 75,800 citizens of Slovakia declared themselves to be of this national minority. Ten years later, in 2001, this was 89,900. Although this represents modest growth, it is still only a share of the overall population of Slovakia which is smaller than 2%.1 The preference for Slovak or Hungarian nationality before Roma nationality is explained by a crisis of Roma identity, which is the consequence of a long period of assimilation and the perception of Roma nationality as less-valued and the stigmatisation associated with it (Škobla – Leončikas – Štěpánková, 2008; Vašečka, 2003).

According to demographic estimates from the year 2001, however, about 380,000 Roma (more than 7% of the Slovak population) were living in Slovakia, and prognoses predict a rise in the number of this ethnic group to 580,000 (Vaňo, 2001, 2002) by the year 2025.

This estimated large growth in numbers in the coming quarter-century derives from the assumption of different reproductive behaviour of the Roma population and different demographic development, which is distinguished in comparison with the majority by higher birth rates and higher measures of fertility, an earlier start to reproductive activities and a longer reproduction period, as well as a significantly higher measure of mortality; differences have also been identified in terms of marital behaviour – a smaller number of marriages despite earlier partnership cohabitation (Filadelfiová, 2001ab, 2004, 2005ab, 2010c; Vaňo, 2001; UNDP, 2006). The specific demographic development is subsequently ex-

pressed in the overall makeup of the Roma population, in which younger age groups and groups of individuals of reproductive age are represented considerably more strongly, but also in the structure of the Roma population according to family status.

The following chapter compares the structure of the surveyed Roma set and the individual subsets defined by type of settlement with the geographically close general population and with the state in the year 2005, and does so on the basis of gender and family status, age and productivity.

3.1. Structure by gender and family status As follows from Table 3.1, the representation of women and men within the entire surveyed Roma population was very balanced: men made up on average 50.6% and women 49.4%.2 According to the type of settlement the survey found a moderately higher share of men for the subset of the Roma population living diffused and separated, while segregated environments were found to have a higher percentage of women (51.1% women to 48.9% of men).

In comparisons with the geographically close general population, but also with the overall population of Slovakia, the share of women and men for the surveyed Roma population is balanced in a non-standard way, because in most modern populations the proportion of women is higher than the proportion of men. So, for example, in the year the study was carried women made up 51.4% of the overall population of Slovakia, and for the geographically close general population in the study this proportion was nearly identical (51.2%). The discovered differences in the proportions of women and

Table 3.1 Structure of the total set of Roma population by gender and type of settlement (in %) Segregated Men Women Individuals together

Separated 48.9 51.1 100.0

Diffused 51.6 48.4 100.0

Total 51.8 48.2 100.0

50.6 49.4 100.0

Note: The data shown are for the entire research set of the surveyed Roma population.

1 How the situation changed in 2011 and how many residents in the most recent census declared themselves to be of Roma ethnicity was still not known at the time the report was written.

2 A similar balance of representation for both groups of genders was also found for the Roma set in 2005; only the proportion was reversed (51% women and 49% men). But the change in this proportion was very small; in the case of a selected finding of this type, it could be the result of unchecked factors in the process of selecting the research sample.

31

R E P O R T O N T H E L I V I N G CO N D I T I O N S O F R O MA H O U S E H O L D S I N S LO VA K I A 2010

Graph 3.1 Structure of the entire set of Roma population by gender – comparison with geographically close general population and with the total population of the Slovak Republic (in %) 0%

10%

20%

Roma population

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

50.6

80%

100%

49.4

Geographically close general population

48.8

51.2

Slovak Republic total

48.6

51.4

Men

90%

Women

Note: The data shown are for the entire research set of the surveyed Roma population.

men for the Roma sets versus the general population, however, from a distance doesn’t reach a level of adequate statistical significance; therefore, it would not be correct to base any hypotheses on this lag in the share of women in the Roma population.3 But in the future it will be necessary to monitor this indicator for the Roma population or part of it in order to determine whether or not in some Roma communities the violation of the human rights of women is involved (unequal access to health care and nutrition, physical violence against Roma women, the consequences of multiple pregnancies on the health of Roma women and the like).

In relation to the structure of the total set of surveyed Roma population age 11 years and older,4 on the basis of the reported current family status, the most numerous group was that of individuals living in marriage. As can be seen in Graph 3.2, married women and men together made up on average 44% of Roma age 11+ years.

The second most numerous group was single individuals (the structure of the Roma set by age itself already indicates this, as the next sub-chapter shows, which confirmed the high representation of the youngest age group), which in the Roma population 11+ years old reached 36.1%. The representation of the group living as a partner was also relatively high – with a share of 13.6% of the total surveyed Roma population age 11 years and older. Thus, 57.6% of the total Roma set lived in some kind of partnership cohabitation. The remaining three family status indicators obtained only a very low percentage of representation: divorced was 2.6%, so-called “separated” was 0.7% and widowed was 3%.

With calculations on the basis of the population defined by the age 15 years and older, as a commonly used general statistic, however, the structure of the surveyed

32

Roma population by family status changed more significantly. The share of individuals living in a marriage increased to 51% and the share of cohabitation (partners) to 15.8%. Together with the status “in a partnership” they were thus on average up to 66.8% of the surveyed Roma population age 15 years and older; the number of single individuals at the same time dropped by 10% – to 26%.

The structure on the basis of family status upon narrowing the population to those older than 18 years ap-

Graph 3.2 Structure of the Roma population age 11+ by family status (in %) 0.7 2.6 3.0

13.6 36.1

44.0

Single Married Partner

Divorced Separated Widowed

Note: The data shown are for individuals age 11 years or older.

3 In the world the share of women in the population is lower than the share of men in those countries which are distinguished by a significantly unequal standing of women or by artificial interference into natural reproductive development (for example, China, some states in India, some Arab states and others).

4 We approached this specification of the basic set according to age in order to ensure a comparison with previous findings in 2005.

R E P O R T O N T H E L I V I N G CO N D I T I O N S O F R O MA H O U S E H O L D S I N S LO VA K I A 2010

Graph 3.3 Structure of the total set of Roma population by family status – comparison with the year 2005 (in %) 0

10

20

30

40

36.1 48.1

Married

44.0 12.3 13.6

Partner

Separated Widowed

60

32.9

Single

Divorced

50

1.3 2.6 0.6 0.7

2005 2010

4.0 3.0

Note: The data shown are for individuals age 11 years or older.

peared still different. In this case the share of single individuals was only 15.6%, and up to 76.1% lived in some type of partnership (of these, 59.1% in a marriage and 17% as partners). And for the population older than 24 years, single individuals represented only 9.5%, while up to 80.7% of the set remained in partnership cohabitation (64.9% in a marriage and 15.8% as partners).

The higher the age limit for defining the basic population, the smaller was the share of Roma men and women living single, and the shares for partnership cohabitation increased. Likewise, the number living as a partner also increased, as if to a certain age limit, and then changed into cohabitation in marriage. What’s interesting is that the representation of divorced and widowed individuals did not notably increase with a shift in the age limit of the surveyed Roma population. After the loss of a partner, Roma men and women probably enter into repeated ties or cohabitation. No significant differences were shown by gender in family status among the Roma population; the one exception was the category of the widowed, where women predominated (5% of Roma women were widowed and among men less than 1%).

For additional possibilities for comparison, let us return to the basic population set by the age limit of 11 years. Compared to the findings of five years ago (Graph 3.3) the percentage of single individuals from the Roma population age 11 years and older grew (from 32.9% to 36.1%), and the share living as a partner and divorced also increased moderately. On the other side this meant a weakening of the position of Roma men and women living in marriage – on average by 4%.

As Table 3.2 shows, on the basis of empirical data certain differences were recorded according to the type of settlement of the Roma population – the achieving of individual family statuses was different for the three comparable Roma settlement types. While all three subsets of the Roma population older than 11 years had an equal share of single individuals, and the aggregate share of those living in a partner relationship was also equal, the proportion of the two types of partnership arrangements varied in the individual environments. The share of married individuals was highest in the separated type (47.2%), which at the same time had the fewest living as partners (9.8%). This was the opposite for those living in diffused settlements; these had the fewest of the mar-

Table 3.2 Structure of surveyed Roma population by family status and type of settlement (in %) Segregated Single Married Partner Divorced Separated Widowed Individuals 11+ years total Note: The data shown are for individuals age years 11 or older.

Separated 36.5 43.8 13.3 1.9 1.2 3.3 100.0

Diffused 36.9 47.2 9.8 2.8 0.6 2.7 100.0

Total 35.0 40.7 18.2 2.9 0.4 2.8 100.0

36.1 44.0 13.6 2.6 0.7 3.0 100.0

33

R E P O R T O N T H E L I V I N G CO N D I T I O N S O F R O MA H O U S E H O L D S I N S LO VA K I A 2010

Graph 3.4 Structure of total set of the Roma population by family status – comparison with the geographically close general population (in %) 0

10

20

40

50

60

36.1

Single

28.1 44.0

Married

54.4 13.6

Partner

2.3 2.6 4.4

Divorced Separated

30

0.7 0.2

Roma population 3.0

Widowed

10.5

Geographically close general population

Note: The data shown are for individuals age 11 years or older.

ried status from among all three compared parts of the Roma population (40.7%) and the most living in partnerships (18.2%). The segregated part of the Roma population, with 43.8% living in a marriage and 13.3% in partnerships, moved somewhere in the middle between them. The other family statuses had in all three subsets only a very low occurrence, including widowed individuals (only about 3% in all environments).

The last axis of comparison – with the geographically close general population – did not bring any surprising findings. However, a number of differences are indicatGraph 3.5 Structure of the Roma population by age group (in %)

11.1

40.2

24.1

24.6

Less than 15 years 15-29 years

34

30-49 years 50 years and more

Note: The data shown are for the whole surveyed set of the Roma population.

ed which are to a great measure caused by the different age structure of both compared populations (significantly fewer of the youngest and significantly more 50-year olds and older for the general set – see Graph 3.7). Since the general population from the geographic vicinity is on average substantially “older”, there are logically rather fewer single individuals in it than in the Roma population (28.1% to 36.1%). Those living in marriage again total about 10% more: 54.4% of the general set to 44.0% of the surveyed Roma set.

The statuses cohabiting as a partner, being divorced as well as being widowed are ranked among those family statuses in which differences between the general population from the geographically close surroundings and the Roma population are most manifested and without regard to the comparable age category (they applied for all defined age groups). The share living as a partner was consistently many times higher within the surveyed Roma population: among those older than 11 years it made up 13.6% of the Roma population and from the general population only 2.3%; in the group age 25 years and older this was 15.8% in the Roma population and 2.6% in the general population. The difference in the case of divorced individuals was 2.6% from the Roma to 4.4% from the general population 11+ years old (among those age 25 years and older it was 4.2% to 5.4%); in the case of widowed individuals 3% from the Roma to 10.5% from the general population 11+ years old (among those 25 years and older 4.8% to 12.7%).

Widowed individuals are thus among the Roma population very much a minority category, although they represented more than one-tenth of those in the geographically close population.5 Such a result is caused partially by the low representation of older ages in the Roma

R E P O R T O N T H E L I V I N G CO N D I T I O N S O F R O MA H O U S E H O L D S I N S LO VA K I A 2010

Graph 3.6 Structure of the whole set of Roma population by age – comparison with the year 2005 (in %) 0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40 39.4 40.2

Less than 15 years 27.6

15-29 years

24.6 22.8 24.1

30-49 years 50 years and more

45

2005

10.2 11.1

2010

Note: The data shown are for the whole surveyed set of the Roma population.

population and partially by the higher occurrence of repeated partnership cohabitation in comparison with the general population.

ing segregated (Table 3.3), where they made up 44.3%.

In the other two groups of Roma population they got an approximately 6% smaller share (they made up 38.4% of separated and 37.5% of those living diffused). In regard to those older than 50 years, the opposite inclination occurred. They received the smallest share among segregated Roma (9.9%) and in the other two groups this was about 1 – 2 percent more (12.1% and 11.2%). But as can be seen, the mutual differences were in no way principle; all three compared Roma living environments are characterised by a strong generation of young people, equally as well as the under-representation of the oldest age category.

From a comparison of proportions of individual age groups among the Roma and the geographically close general population a huge difference appeared in the share of the youngest and the oldest. In the geographically close general population there was, according to the research findings, approximately 25% fewer children to age 15 years old (15.5% versus 40.2%) and 28% more people in the 50+ years age group (39.2 % versus 11.1%) than for the Roma population. The middle-aged groups achieved in total a relatively balanced proportional representation among the compared populations; only a moderate shift toward the older age category was ex-

3.2. Age structure In relation to the structure by age, the description of the research sample (Chapter 2.2.) has already outlined the above-standard representation of the younger age groups in the Roma sets and the low share of older people. As Graph 3.5 shows, the age group of the youngest individuals to 15 years old reached on average for the whole surveyed Roma population up to 40.2%, and for those 50 years and older fell to just approximately onetenth (11.1 of the total set of individuals).

What’s more, over the past five years almost nothing has changed in this ratio of the youngest and the oldest (Graph 3.6). Empirical data recorded only a minimal increase for the categories of the youngest and oldest (by 1%), namely at the expense of the middle age groups, which in a comparison for the five-year periods “tapered off” from 50.4% to 48.7%.6 According to the type of settlement children to 15 years old had the largest share of the subset of those liv-

Table 3.3 Structure of the whole set of Roma population by age and type of settlement (in %) Segregated less than 15 years 15-29 years 30-49 years 50 years or older Individuals together

Separated 44.3 23.7 22.1 9.9 100.0

Diffused 38.4 24.8 24.7 12.1 100.0

Total 37.5 25.5 25.8 11.2 100.0

40.2 24.6 24.1 11.1 100.0

Note: The data shown are for the whole surveyed set of the Roma population.

5 We should also remember that in the overall population of Slovakia the share of widowed individuals is high, primarily among women; in recent years it was around 12% (Statistical..., 2010).

6 The change in time, however, is not statistically significant and could also be caused by the selection process.

35

R E P O R T O N T H E L I V I N G CO N D I T I O N S O F R O MA H O U S E H O L D S I N S LO VA K I A 2010

Graph 3.7 Structure of the whole set of Roma population by age – comparison with the geographically close general population (in %) 0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

40.2

Less than 15 years

15.5 24.6

15-29 years

19.7 24.1 25.6

30-49 years 11.1

50 years and more

39.2 Roma population

Geographically close general population

Note: The data shown are for the whole surveyed set of the Roma population.

pressed (30 – 49 years) in the general population (Graph 3.7). The general population from the geographically close surroundings of Roma communities is thus significantly older than the Roma population.

Yet another comparison of the surveyed Roma and the general population offers cumulative totals, as are presented in Table 3.4. Children up to six years old made up 19.5% of the total Roma population, but only 7.6% of the general population. With a shift in the age limit to 14 years old, the share of Roma children rose to 40.2%, but children to age 14 totalled only 15.5% of the geographically close general population. Further, while children 18-years and younger made up 47.6%, or nearly half, of the Roma population, in the general population this group had a one-fifth representation (20.7% being 18 years and younger).

The cumulative share of the young generation to 25 years inclusive reached nearly 60% in the surveyed Roma set, while in the general population they totalled less than 30%. Thus, the share from the Roma population older than 25 years was just over 40%, while from the general population it was 71%.

The result of the listed differences in representation of the youngest and oldest categories is a much divided average age for the Roma and the geographically

close general population. While for the Roma this moved on the level of 25 years, the average age for the geographically close general population was over 40 years old (42.79 year), which approximately corresponds to the Slovak national average. A second trend which is obvious from the data presented in Graph 3.8 is a drop in the average age with the level of spatial exclusion. For the segregated part of the Roma population the average age did not even reach 23 years, while in the Roma population living separated it was almost exactly 25 years and for those living diffused it was nearly 26 years. Segregated settlement, therefore, further decreases the already low total average age of the surveyed Roma population.

A comparison of the average age of women and men for the individual subsets confirmed that, as with Slovakia as a whole, in the Roma population this is higher also in the case of women: on average by one year for all Roma women in comparison with men, and in segregated environments by a half-year. The difference in average age of Roma women and men, however, lags more markedly behind the gender difference (the “gender gap”) characterising the entire population of Slovakia. While the average age of women in Slovakia in the year 2010 reached 40.4 years and the average age

Table 3.4 Share of the youngest generation of different age groups for the whole set of Roma population – comparison with the geographically close general population (in cumulative %) Roma population Share of children to 6 years inclusive Share of children to 14 years inclusive Share of children to 18 years inclusive Share of youth to 25 years inclusive Share of the age group 26 or more years

36

Note: The data shown are for the whole surveyed set of the Roma population.

19.5 40.2 47.6 59.3 40.7

Geographically close general population 7.6 15.5 20.7 28.6 71.4

R E P O R T O N T H E L I V I N G CO N D I T I O N S O F R O MA H O U S E H O L D S I N S LO VA K I A 2010

38.80

Women

40.40

Women

40.19

Men

37.10

40

37.45

45

42.79

Graph 3.8 Average age in comparison – by gender and with the total population (in years)

22.36

22.86

21.83

24.79

25.04

24.85

24.85

25

25.80

30

23.97

35

20 15 10 5 0 Diffused

Separated

Segregated

Geographically close general population

Slovakia total

Note: The data shown are for the whole surveyed set of the Roma population.

of men in Slovakia was 37.1 years, which is a difference of approximately three years, for Roma women from the segregated environments this was 21.8 years and for men was 22.4 years, which is a difference of only half a year. Not only is the Roma population distinguished by a significantly lower average age on the whole, but it’s also as if the gender difference in these indicators has been wiped away.

Analysis of empirical data confirmed that the age structure of the Roma population is furthermore significantly differentiated from the total population. With the Roma population it’s not possible to speak of its demographic aging, although over time it is possible to observe a shift toward older age groups. The average age of the Roma population is more than 15 years lower, which is on one hand a consequence of its higher birth rate, but on the other hand also earlier mortality, with great probability caused by worse living conditions, worse health status and more difficult access to health care (see Chapters 6 and 7 for more information).

fore mandatory school attendance and 25.4% pupils from primary schools and students from secondary schools or colleges. On the other side, the share of postproductive persons, those who declared themselves as pensioners, was very low, totalling just 5% in the total set of Roma population. The remaining 50.9% was made up of economically active individuals (working and unGraph 3.9 Structure of the surveyed Roma population by economic status (in %) 1.3 3.3 5.0 1.2

18.7

6.5

25.4

32.5

3.3. Structure on the basis of productivity Structure by age categories and the value of the average age at the same time indicated the strong positions of pre-productive age and the absence of old-age pensioners within the entire Roma population. On the basis of declared current economic status the largest part of the surveyed Roma population group was the preproductive group (Graph 3.9). Together this was 44.1% of the entire set, with 18.7% represented by children be-

6.1

Child before primary school Pupils, students Working Unemployed At home

On parental leave, maternity leave Old-age pensioner Disability pensioner Other (including OČD)

Note: The data shown are for the whole surveyed set of the Roma population.

OČD = treating a household member.

37

R E P O R T O N T H E L I V I N G CO N D I T I O N S O F R O MA H O U S E H O L D S I N S LO VA K I A 2010

Graph 3.10 Structure of the Roma population by economic status – comparison with the year 2005 (in %) 0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

25.0

Child before primary school

18.7 19.6

Pupils, students

25.4 4.3

Working

6.1 34.9

Unemployed At home

32.5 0.6 1.2 7.4 6.5

On parental leave, maternity leave

4.8 5.0

Old-age pensioner

2.9 3.3

Disability pensioner Other (including OČD)

40

2005

0.5 1.3

2010

Note: The data shown are for the whole surveyed set of the Roma population. OČD = treating a household member.

employed) and holders of other statuses of economic inactivity – at home, on maternity or parental leave, disability pensioners and other types of inactivity (Chapter 9 devotes broader attention to them).

The structure of the surveyed Roma population according to declared productivity has changed only a little from a five-years perspective (Graph 3.10): the share of pre-productive children, that is those of a preschool age and pupils and students, was 44.6% in 2005, and the current figure is 44.1%. The only shift which was recorded in the younger generation was a certain “aging”. In the pre-productive group the representation of children of a pre-school age decreased significantly (from 25% in 2005 to 18.7% in 2010), and did so to the advantage of mandatory school-aged children and stu-

dents (a growth on average from 19.6% to 25.4% of the entire Roma population).

With the type of settlement the size of the pre-productive component of the Roma population changed moderately. Children and students for the subset of Roma living segregated together represented 47.6%, from separated made up 43.5% and from diffused 40.7%. On the other hand, the share of old-age pensioners was lowest in segregated settlements – only 3.6%; in the subset of Roma living separated this was 6.3% and among those living diffused it was 5.1% (Table 3.5).

In comparison with the geographically close general population the Roma population in its overall structure had a great deal fewer old-age pensioners – by nearly 20%. While these made up 5% of the surveyed Roma

Table 3.5 Structure of the Roma population by economic status and type of settlement (in %) Segregated Child before primary school Pupils, students Working Unemployed At home Parental or maternity leave Old-age pensioner Disability pensioner Others (including OČD) Individuals together

38

Separated 20.0 27.6 3.9 31.5 2.0 6.4 3.6 3.5 1.5 100.0

Diffused 17.7 25.8 6.1 32.9 0.6 6.3 6.3 2.8 1.5 100.0

Note: The data shown are for the whole surveyed set of the Roma population. OČD = treating a household member.

Total 18.1 22.6 8.5 33.1 1.0 6.8 5.1 3.7 1.1 100.0

18.7 25.4 6.1 32.5 1.2 6.5 5.0 3.3 1.3 100.0

R E P O R T O N T H E L I V I N G CO N D I T I O N S O F R O MA H O U S E H O L D S I N S LO VA K I A 2010

Graph 3.11 Structure of the Roma population by economic status – comparison with the geographically close general population (in %) 0

5

10

25

30

35

40

7.6 25.4

Pupils, students

19.6 6.1

Working

37.8 32.5

Unemployed

6.2 1.2 0.4 6.5

On parental leave, maternity leave

3.1 5.0

Old-age pensioner

24.5 3.3 3.6

Disability pensioner Other (including OCD)

20 18.7

Child before primary school

At home

15

1.3 0.9 Roma population

Geographically close general population

Note: The data shown are for the whole surveyed set of the Roma population. OČD = treating a household member.

population, for the geographically close general population old-age pensioners represented 24.5%. At the opposite pole, the ratio between the Roma and the general population was reversed, with the Roma set having 20% higher representation of pre-productive persons than the set from the geographically close general population (44.1% to 23.6%).

But at the same time, as the data in Graph 3.11 show, the total share of pre-productive and post-productive persons in both compared sets was approximately equal. For the Roma and the geographically close general population they make up approximately half: 49.1% for the Roma and 48.1% for the general population.

The index of economic burden, which expresses the share of pre-productive and post-productive persons for a group of productive persons, was therefore nearly identical for both compared populations. They differed only in the fact that in the case of the Roma population they represented a “higher burden” for the public budget for the education of children and preparation for a profession and in the case of the general population of payouts for pensioners. But this depends on the economic activities of the productive group, whether it is connected to the labour market and with what level of success.7

Conclusions Thus, on the basis of biological as well as by productive age, the structure of the Roma population is significantly more abundant in the younger age groups; on the other hand its older generation is disproportionately weaker than that of the general population. And with the growth of geographic exclusion this generational disproportion is still deepening. While the high share of the youngest generation of pre-productive age confirms an assumption about reproductive behaviour, for which a higher birth rate and higher fertility is characteristic, the low share of older age groups and post-production individuals reflects, aside from the different reproduction behaviour, also the worst health status and living conditions of many groups of the Roma population, which contributes to the growth of mortality and its shifting to a lower age, than is typical for the Slovak Republic (in comparison with original EU member states the standard measure of mortality is still very high).

The very small share of older age groups and old-age pensioners in the Roma population indicates that they do not represent a great burden for the pension system.

This fact, however, is not emphasised and is neglected in discourse about the relations of the Roma population and the social system; the connection with poverty benefits is more typically pointed out.

7 Chapter 9 is devoted to details about the different aspects of the economic activities and employment of Roma men and women.

39

04

Mother tongue and language used in daily life in the roma population

Professional literature often cites basic knowledge and abilities in a language as being among the fundamental prerequisites for the integration of individuals into a society. Command of the majority language increases the chance for education and subsequently broadens job opportunities and regional possibilities for finding work.

Studies, particularly those focusing mainly on migrations and migrants, have called attention to this dependence (Gallová-Kriglerová, 2009; Gallová-Kriglerová – Kadlečíková – Lajčáková (eds.), 2009; Filadelfiová – Sekulová, 2009; Filadelfiová – Gyárfášová – Hlinčíková – Sekulová, 2010; Popper – Bianchi – Lukšík – Seghy, 2006; Rákoczyová – Trbola (eds.), 2009; Souralová, 2009; Vašečka – Košťál (eds.), 2009; Williams – Baláž, 2008); but they are also mentioned in connection with ethnic minorities (Kusá – Rusnáková – Koželová, 2011; Vašečka 2002, 2003; UNDP, 2006). An empirical study carried out on the Roma population also devoted attention to this, by which the mother tongue and the language of daily life were examined.

Graph 4.1 Roma population by native language (in %)

4.1. Native language

mother tongue was therefore found in the group living diffused (along with the 29.9% Romani, 19.5% Hungarian and 50.5% Slovak were given as the mother tongue); conversely, the largest concentration for the Romani language as the mother tongue was again found in segregated settlements (only 14.8% Slovak and 11.2% Hungarian).

Upon comparison of the status in the years 2005 and 2010, particularly for the segregated part of the Roma population, a moderate shift from Slovak to Hungarian was observed,2 while representation of the Romani language remained completely the same. The shift toward Hungarian in this environment could be the result of the selection, or it could equally signal that segregated settlements often originate in geographic surroundings where the Hungarian language predominates.

Despite the geographical proximity, a completely different structure by mother tongue is evident between the Roma and general population (Graph 4.2). The geographically close general population was less diverse from this point of view in that the Slovak language was predominate as the mother tongue (given by 80.6%),

In terms of language used, the Roma population in Slovakia can be identified as heterogeneous, or multicultural.

This is already evident in the question of the mother tongue. Exactly one-third of the surveyed Roma population gave Slovak as their mother tongue and an additional 12% gave Hungarian (Graph 4.1). However, the highest representation was, naturally enough, in the Romani language, which more than half of the entire set declared as their mother tongue (54.7%). And a comparison with the situation five years ago did not reveal any significant shifts in this regard.1 However, where answers about the mother tongue did strongly differ was in relation to the type of settlement (Table 4.1). With growing concentration and segregation of Roma citizens, the citing of Romani as the mother tongue increased very markedly. While among the Roma population living in diffused settlements this totalled 29.9%, for separated Roma the share grew to 57.4% and for Roma citizens living segregated up to 74%.

The greatest linguistic differentiation on the basis of

0.1

33.2

54.7

12.0

Slovak Hungarian

Romani other language

Note: Mother tongue was defined as the language spoken by the respondent’s mother.

1 The share declaring Romani as their mother tongue remained almost totally identical (54.4% in 2005 and 54.7% in 2010). The moderate decline recorded in Hungarian as the mother tongue and the moderate increase of Slovak as a mother tongue (a change of approximately 1.5%) could be the result of selection – which regions of Slovakia the research sample covered in the subsequent years.

2 In 2005, 16.9% of Roma living segregated gave Slovak as their mother tongue and five years later 14.8%; on the other hand, in 2005 only 8.1% considered Hungarian as their mother tongue and in 2010 the share rose to 11.2%.

41

R E P O R T O N T H E L I V I N G CO N D I T I O N S O F R O MA H O U S E H O L D S I N S LO VA K I A 2010

Table 4.1 Roma population by mother tongue and type of settlement (in %) Segregated Slovak Hungarian Romani other language Total

Separated 14.8 11.2 74.0 — 100.0

Diffused 36.5 5.8 57.4 0.3 100.0

Total 50.5 19.5 29.9 0.1 100.0

33.2 12.0 54.7 0.1 100.0

Note: Mother tongue was defined as the language spoken by the respondent’s mother.

while the share of Hungarian as the mother tongue was nearly the same in both compared populations (12% in the Roma and 14% in the general population). The Romani language, which 54.7% of the surveyed Roma population gave as their mother tongue, reached only 2% in the general population.

This was the situation so long as the three most commonly listed mother tongues were involved – Romani, Slovak and Hungarian. But where the general population showed greater diversity in the mother tongue, there was a share for still another mother tongue. In the Roma population an additional language occurred only sporadically,

while for the geographically close general population other mother tongues were declared by 3.4% of respondents.

The Ruthenian language occurred most commonly, followed by the Czech language.

4.2 Language of daily use in the roma population The distribution of answers regarding the language of daily use which respondents listed as first (Graph 4.3) as a whole approximately matched the status for the

Graph 4.2 Roma population by mother tongue – comparison with the geographically close general population (in %) 0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

33.2 Slovak

80.6 12.0 14.0

Hungarian Romani other language

54.7 2.0 0.1 3.4 Roma population

Geographically close general population

Note: Mother tongue was defined as the language spoken by the respondent’s mother.

42

3 The situation appeared in more detail with a comparison of mother tongue and first language of daily household use for the three Roma settlement types as follows: a) In segregated settlements the share of those who listed Slovak as their mother tongue and at the same time as the first language of daily use was 12.6%; in separated settlements this was 35.0%, and for diffused it was 48.0%; b) The Romani language was used equally as a mother tongue and as the first language of daily use for 67.9% of segregated, 54.2% of separated and 25.3% of those living diffused; c) Hungarian was declared as the mother tongue and the first language of daily use by 9.8% of segregated, 5.3% of separated and 17.3% of those living diffused; d) The transition from Slovak as the mother tongue to Hungarian as the primarily used language occurred only very rarely for all three Roma settlement types (from 0.2% for separated to 1% for Roma living diffused); e) The transition from Slovak as the mother tongue to Romani as the primarily used language occurred a bit more often (from 1.4% for separated and diffused through 2.2% for segregated); f ) The reverse transition, from Romani as the mother tongue to Slovak as the primary language of daily use, occurred more often – for segregated and diffused settlements it was more than 4% and for separated 1.5% (an equal share of separated gave the transition from Romani as the mother tongue to Hungarian); g) In all, more than 90% of Roma, without regard to the type of settlement, declared the mother tongue and the first language of daily use as being the same, and not quite 10% expressed a disproportion (while for the general population from the geographic proximity this was only a little more than 5%). However, it was shown that when the mother tongue is not found in the position of the first language of daily household use, it appeared as the second language of daily use; only a minority part of the surveyed Roma population did not commonly use their mother tongue at home.

R E P O R T O N T H E L I V I N G CO N D I T I O N S O F R O MA H O U S E H O L D S I N S LO VA K I A 2010

Graph 4.3 Roma population by (first) language of daily use (in %)

mother tongue. A total of 34.9% of the surveyed Roma population gave Slovak as their first language of daily use, another 12.3% Hungarian and 52.7% Romani. Thus, the mother tongue on the whole corresponded almost completely with the primary language of daily household use; on average only a minimal shift toward the Slovak language was shown in the first language of daily use; this occurred at the expense of Romani, but only by a negligible 2%.3 A comparison with the geographically close general population (Graph 4.4), therefore, also shows the mother tongue to be the first language of daily use. While for the general population the Slovak language was dominant as the most common language of daily household use (84.2%), for the surveyed Roma population, Romani prevailed (52.7%), but Slovak and Hungarian also had a significant share. Only 0.1% of the Roma population used another language as their first language of daily use, while this was 2.6% for the general population.

But a relatively large difference was found with the citing of the first language of daily household use upon comparison of the situation with the year 2005. In

0.1

34.9

52.7

12.3

Slovak Hungarian

Romani other language

Note: The language which the respondent speaks daily at home was considered as the common language.

Data only for those who can already speak.

Graph 4.4 Roma population by (first) language of daily use – comparison with geographically close general population (in %) 0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

34.9

Slovak

84.2 12.3 11.7

Hungarian

52.7

Romani

1.5 0.1 2.6

other language

Roma population

Geographically close general population

Note: The language which the respondent speaks daily at home was considered as the common language. Data only for those who can already speak.

Graph 4.5 Roma population by (first) language of daily use – comparison with the year 2005 (in %) 0

10

20

40

50

60

40.8

Slovak

2005

34.9

2010

14.1 12.3

Hungarian

44.9

Romani other language

30

52.7 0.2 0.1

Note: The language which the respondent speaks daily at home was considered as the common language. Data only for those who can already speak.

43

R E P O R T O N T H E L I V I N G CO N D I T I O N S O F R O MA H O U S E H O L D S I N S LO VA K I A 2010

Table 4.2 Roma population by (first) language of daily use and the type of settlement (in %) Segregated

Separated

Slovak Hungarian Romani other language Total

Diffused

17.5 11.3 71.2 — 100.0

Total

36.8 6.9 56.2 0.1 100.0

52.9 19.7 27.4 — 100.0

34.9 12.3 52.7 0.1 100.0

Note: The language which the respondent speaks daily at home was considered as the common language. Data only for those who can already speak.

2010 a great deal fewer cited Slovak as the first language of daily household use, and the same held true for Hungarian as well, while this decline occurred to the benefit of the Romani language. The share of those Roma who gave Romani as a first language of daily household use in 2010 increased in comparison with 2005, from 44.9% to 52.7% (Graph 4.5).

The situation from the viewpoint of the first language of daily household use in the surveyed Roma population differed very strongly on the basis of type of settlement – the share of primary Romani-speaking households grew dynamically with the measure of spatial exclusion (Table 4.2). While in the Roma population living diffused the Romani language was listed as the first language of daily use by 27.4%, among the separated it was 56.2% and for the segregated part of the Roma population it was 71.2%.

In segregated settlements the share of Romani as the language of daily use was thus almost three times higher than for those living diffused. It can be stated that the spatial segregation of Romani as the language of daily use is strengthening. The share of Hungarian as the main language of daily use had its highest occurrence for Roma living diffused (19.7%), followed by living segregat-

ed (11.3%), and only 6.9% of separated gave Hungarian.

The Slovak language is also the most used among the Roma population living diffused (52.9%), with the separated part of the Roma population at a distance (36.8%), and it is used the least in segregated settlements, where it scored only 17.5%.

And the type of settlement of the Roma population also intervened significantly in the recorded time change, to the benefit of the more often given Romani as the primary language of daily use. Most the above-mentioned growth in using the Romani language in comparison with 2005 (see Graph 4.5) occurred in the segregated part of the Roma population (Graph 4.6). While the share of Romani as the first language of daily household use increased for those segregated in the course of the past five years from 53.7% to 71.2% (by nearly 20%), for those living separated this increase was from 48.1% to 56.2% (by only 8%); with those living diffused a decline took place in the end regarding the use of Romani – from 31.6% to 27.4%. With the Slovak language as the first language of daily household use, this was the opposite: for the segregated Roma population there was a drop in the primary use of Slovak from 36.6% in 2005 to 17.5% in 2010; with the sep-

Graph 4.6 Roma population by (first) language of daily use and the type of settlement – comparison with the year 2005 (in %) Hungarian

other language

44.3

52.9

56.2

19.7 27.5

24.1 31.6

0

0

0.1

0.1

6.9

10.0 0

0.6

10

9.1

20

17.5 11.3

30

36.8

36.6

40

41.8

60

48.1

53.7

70

50

Romani

71.2

Slovak 80

0 2005

2010 Segregated

44

2005

2010 Separated

2005

2010 Diffused

Note: The language which the respondent speaks daily at home was considered as the common language. Data only for those who can already speak.

R E P O R T O N T H E L I V I N G CO N D I T I O N S O F R O MA H O U S E H O L D S I N S LO VA K I A 2010

Graph 4.7 The share of those who listed a second language of daily household use – comparison of subsets with the geographically close general population (in %) 0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

88.0

Segregated Separated

70.1

Diffused

66.5

Geographically close general population

24.5

Note: The language which the respondent speaks daily at home was considered as the common language. Data only for those who can already speak.

arated part, the drop was more moderate (from 41.8% to 36.8%), and in the case of those living diffused the use of Slovak as the first language increased (from 44.3% to 52.9%). In relation to daily use of the Hungarian language among the Roma population, again the recorded status differentiated according to the degree of spatial exclusion, but not as intensively. For the segregated share, Hungarian as the first language of daily use grew modestly in the compared years (from 9.1% to 11.3%), and with the oth-

er two groups a decline was recorded: in the case of separated from 10% to 6.9% and in the case of the Roma population living diffused from 24.1% to 19.7%.

On the basis of the obtained date it was also shown that the Roma population living segregated far more often than the other compared groups also gave a second language of daily household use (Graph 4.7). From the segregated type 88% declared a second language of daily use, while with the separated this was 70.1% and for

Graph 4.8 Share of a 2nd language of daily use for individual types of the 1st language of daily use – comparison of the Roma subset with the geographically close general population (in %) 0 Slovak 0

10

50

60

47.2

70

80

48.2

43.9

9.8 0 0.2

Hungarian

70.7

Romani

69.8

0

24.4

0

9.0 0 0.6

40.0

0.9

55.3

Romani

100

0

84.3

Hungarian

90

0.9 0

Romani

Slovak 0 8.6

Diffused

40

43.8

Slovak 0 5.5

Separated

30

11.3

Hungarian Segregated

20

0 66.3

33.5

0

15.3

0

0.6 Slovak 0 4.7 7.4 Geographically close general population

Hungarian

2.7 0 0

87.5

Romani 0

78.6 Slovak

Hungarian

0 Romani

other language

Note: The language which the respondent speaks daily at home was considered as the common language. Data only for those who can already speak.

45

R E P O R T O N T H E L I V I N G CO N D I T I O N S O F R O MA H O U S E H O L D S I N S LO VA K I A 2010

diffused 66.5%. A great deal fewer respondents (24.5%) from the geographically close general population used a second language for household communication.

A comparison of the first and second languages of daily use indicated that there exists a relatively broad group of segregated Roma population in which Slovak was not among the first two languages. Thus, the Hungarian language was put in the first position and Romani in the second (48.2% of the segregated Roma population with Hungarian as the primary language), or the opposite – Romani appeared in the first place and Hungarian in the second (9.8% of the segregated Roma population with Romani as the primary language). The same groups had representation also in the separated and segregated groups, only to a smaller extent (Graph 4.8). This means that for a certain segment of the Roma population the Slovak language is the third language of choice (or is perhaps not used at all).

Conclusions Empirical data suggest that the spatial segregation of the Roma population probably also has an impact on language segregation, because in the surveyed segregated settlements the dominant language of daily household use was predominately Romani – unlike the other

46

two types of settlements. In comparison with Roma living diffused, those in the segregated settlements declared Romani as their first language of daily use three times more often. At the same time segregated settlements most often also cited a second language of common communication, with the Roma in comparison with the geographically close general population, a second language was listed a great deal more often.

The data also show that groups of population exist which utilise two languages in daily household use, however neither of them is Slovak. Many Roma children from segregated (and separated) settlements thus can have problems in education due to the lack of opportunity to hear Slovak in common use at home. The mother tongue and the language of daily household use should therefore be very carefully considered when selecting a specific school (according to the language used for teaching), but also when testing prior to entry to primary school or deciding about being assigned to a special school. Children can fail when testing because of the language used, not because of mental disability or insufficient general foundations and skills. At the same time it is necessary to emphasise that also in connection with knowledge of languages, an adapted and an available system of nursery schools appears to be a very important component of preparation for school attendance for many groups of Roma children.

05

Migration and exclusion relating to housing

One component of the empirical research on the living conditions of Roma households was an important module focused on the geographic mobility of the Roma community. It can say a lot about the depth of spatial exclusion – about its being minimising or strengthened – as well as about the consequences and impacts of exclusion on the position and life chances or Roma citizens in other spheres of life. In this module the continuity of living in the current settlement was tracked along with relocation within a municipality, and the geographic position of the municipality of previous residence is compared with the present one; an important component was also the measure of segregation of the previous and the

Graph 5.1 Roma population age 15+ years by continuity of residence in a municipality (in %)

23.0

5.1. Mobility to place of current residence and within it1 A block of questions devoted to changes of places of residence began by ascertaining the continuity or discontinuity of living in the municipality of current residence.

This subsequently divided the research set of Roma population into natives and migrants. For those who currently lived in their municipality of birth, changes of residence within the current municipality were further determined, and for migrants to the municipality, the length of stay in their current residence and the specifics of their previous residence on the basis of distance from the present one were ascertained.

5.1.1. Continuity of residence in the present municipality versus migration

2.6 4.4 70.1

From birth With smaller breaks

present residence. The reasons for relocation and the temporary migration from the site of the current residence also became components of the findings.

With longer breaks Migrated here

Question: Have you lived in this municipality practically since birth, possibly with smaller or larger breaks?

In relation to the period of residence in the current municipality, the scales were tipped heavily in favour of continual residence (Graph 5.1). More than three-quarters of the surveyed Roma population age 15 years and older lived in the municipality where they were born (a total of 77.1%); thus, 70.1% of the entire set lived continuously, that is without any longer or shorter breaks, in the municipality of their birth; another 7% had interrupted their residence in their place of birth for a shorter time (4.4%) or for a longer (2.6%) time period.2 Less than one-quarter (23%) had migrated to the municipality of their current residence from another settlement.

Table 5.1 Roma population age 15+ years by continuity of residence in a municipality and type of settlement (in %) Segregated Since birth With smaller breaks With larger breaks Migrated Individuals 15+ total

Separated 74.6 4.6 1.3 19.4 100.0

Diused 72.5 5.2 2.8 19.6 100.0

Total 62.6 3.4 3.7 30.4 100.0

70.1 4.4 2.6 23.0 100.0

Question: Have you lived in this municipality practically since your birth (possibly with smaller or larger breaks)?

1 The entire chapter on migration presents data from the population age 15 years and older.

2 The line between smaller and longer breaks was set at 6 months.

47

R E P O R T O N T H E L I V I N G CO N D I T I O N S O F R O MA H O U S E H O L D S I N S LO VA K I A 2010

Graph 5.2 Roma population age 15+ years by continuity of residence in a municipality – comparison with the geographically close general population (in %) 0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

70.1 68.8

Since birth With smaller breaks

4.4 2.0

With longer breaks

2.6 1.7

Roma population 23.0

Migrated here

27.4

Geographically close general population

Question: Have you been living in this municipality practically since your birth (possibly with smaller or larger breaks)?

According to the type of settlement within the surveyed Roma population age 15+ years, larger differences appeared in the continuity of residence in the place of birth – residents of non-integrated municipalities were the “most loyal” to their place of birth (Table 5.1). While the share living in their native municipality since birth was 74.6% in segregated settlements and 72.5% in separated settlements, this share of the Roma population living in diffused settlements was more than 10% less (only 62.6%). Conversely, segregated and separated areas had a significantly smaller representation of those who migrated to their current municipality: 19.4% and 19.6% migrants as opposed

Graph 5.3 Roma population age 15+ years by relocation within a municipality (in %)

11.2

48.1 40.7

to 30.4% among those living diffused. Also, temporary interruptions of residence were the least frequent for the subgroup of Roma population living segregated (total shorter and longer breaks 5.9%).

In comparison with the geographically close general population, representation of those living in their native municipality continuously hardly differed (68.8% for the general population to 70.1% for the Roma). Where a smaller difference could be observed was in interrupted living and migrating to the municipality (Graph 5.2). In the Roma population age 15+ years, residence in the place of birth with smaller or larger breaks was more common (7% to 3.7%), while the geographically close general population had a higher representation of migrants to the municipality (27.4% for the general population to 23% for the Roma population).

According to empirical data it appears as if the segregated and separated settlements in the Roma population were more closed and offered fewer opportunities for movement associated with a change in permanent residence. A similar tendency was evident to a smaller measure with a comparison of the Roma and the geographically close general population – the Roma population showed a modest predominance of those who live in their place of birth. The differences, however, were not statistically significant.

5.1.2. Changes of place of residence within a municipality In a family house, flat, dwelling Relocated one time Relocated multiple times

48

Question: Are you living in the home you were born in, or have you moved within the municipality/town?

Note: Only for individuals age 15+ years who live permanently in the municipality – they did not migrate from another municipality.

Let’s look closer at the group of those individuals who have live permanently in their native municipality (they haven’t migrated): to what extent they have changed their place of residence within the municipality (Graph 5.3). According to the findings, approximately half of these (48.1%) have always lived in their family house, flat or dwelling, while the remaining 51.9% have moved at least one time, changed the address of their permanent residence, within their na-

R E P O R T O N T H E L I V I N G CO N D I T I O N S O F R O MA H O U S E H O L D S I N S LO VA K I A 2010

Table 5.2 Roma population age 15+ years by relocation within a municipality and type of settlement (in %) Segregated In family house, flat, dwelling Moved one time Moved more than once Individuals 15+ total

Separated 56.0 38.0 5.9 100.0

Diffused

Total

49.0 38.6 12.4 100.0

37.2 46.6 16.2 100.0

48.1 40.7 11.2 100.0

Question: Are you living in the home you were born in, or have you moved within the municipality/town?

Note: Only for individuals age 15+ years who live permanently in the municipality – they did not migrate from another municipality.

tive municipality. The share of those who relocated only one time represented 40.7% of those who had moved within their native municipality, while 11.2% had moved within their native municipality more than once.

A look at the part of the Roma population age 15+ years who lived permanently in their native municipality reveals a relatively large differentiation by spatial segregation. Living in a family home was in segregated settlements significantly more frequent than in the other two groups: 56% for segregated versus 49% for separated and 37.2% for diffused. On the other hand one-time or repeated relocation within the native municipality more often appeared in those living diffused: 16.2% of them had moved more than once (only 5.9% for segregated), while 46.6% had moved only once (only 38% for segregated). And this is probably not due only to the the higher number of children in segregated settlements (see Chapter 2); segregated communities do have more children, as well as significantly earlier marriage or partnership cohabitation.3 In a comparison with the equally defined geographically close general population the Roma population appeared from the viewpoint of mobility within the native municipality as more mobile (Graph 5.4). A moderately smaller share was shown to be living in the family home or dwelling and also a single move within the municipal-

ity (in total they represented 88.8% versus 94% for the general population), but those who had moved more than once within their native municipality was nearly two-times higher (11.2% versus 6% for the general population).

As follows from the data presented in the graph, the general population living permanently in the native municipality predominately remained in a family home or moved one time – probably to be independent of parents, relatively few reported repeated changes of place of residence within a native municipality. In the surveyed Roma population, the first two models likewise predominated, i.e. to live in the family home or move one time within a municipality, but in comparison with the immediate general surroundings they moved within the native municipality more often – the share of repeated relocation in them reached 11.2%. (Whether by relocating they shifted to an integrated settlement and the reasons for relocating are presented in the following parts 5.2 and 5.3.)

5.1.3. Migrations by geographic position of the municipality of previous residence The second group defined by the continuity of residence in the native municipality was made up of migrants. Let us

Graph 5.4 Roma population age 15+ years by relocation within a municipality – comparison with the geographically close general population (in %) 0

10

20

30

40

50 48.1 50.7

In the family house, flat, dwelling 40.7 43.3

Moved one time Moved more than once

60

11.2 6.0 Roma population

Geographically close general population

Question: Are you living in the home you were born in, or have you moved within the municipality/town?

Note: Only for individuals of 15+ years, who live permanently in the municipality – they did not migrate from another municipality.

3 For more details see Chapter 3.1 of this publication, but also: Vaňo, 2001; Vaňo – Haviarová, 2002.

49

R E P O R T O N T H E L I V I N G CO N D I T I O N S O F R O MA H O U S E H O L D S I N S LO VA K I A 2010

Graph 5.5 Migrated Roma population age 15+ by previous residence (in %)

15.6

15.6

4.4

8.3

12.8

neighbouring municipality another municipality in the district another district in the region

43.3

another region in Slovakia abroad not given

Question: Where did you migrate here from?

Note: Only for individuals age 15+ years who migrated to the municipality.

recall that they comprised the smaller part of the population age 15 years and older: among the Roma 23% migrated to their current municipality and from the general population 27.4%. For this group, the place from which they arrived to the current municipality was ascertained. It was shown that more than half of the migrated Roma population age 15+ years had previous residence within the same district (total 58.9%), of which 15.6% arrived from an immediately neighbouring municipality and 43.3% from another municipality in the same district. An additional 12.8% had their previous residence in another district, but in the same region, and 8.3% came from a different region of Slovakia. Migrants from abroad made up 4.4% of the Roma population age 15+ years (predominately from Czech Republic; other countries occurred only rarely); the remaining 15.6% did not answer the question (Graph 5.5).

According to the type of Roma population settlement the share of migrants from another district or region of the Slovak Republic (about 12% and 8%) was more or less that same among all three subsets, but for the other possibilities a certain difference appeared (Table 5.3). In the case of segregated and separated Roma there were more migrants from neighbouring municipalities in comparison with those living diffused (18.9% and 15.9% against 13% for diffused), and among those living diffused, again there were significantly more migrants found from other municipalities in the district in comparison with the other two groups. While among migrants to a municipality in the case of living diffused the share of those arriving from another municipality in the district was 51%, for segregated and separated settlements this was not quite 38%. Migration from abroad (as is mentioned above, nearly exclusively from Czech Republic) most often occurred for separated settlements (7.5%); those living diffused had a smaller share by half (3.9%) and with segregated this was nearly 4-times less (only 2.1%).

But it is necessary to emphasise that to the last result, the high share of non-responses intervened in these questions, especially for the segregated part of the migrant Roma population age 15 years or more. Among the separated and diffused approximately 12% refused to respond in regard to from where they had migrated to the municipality; however, from the segregated areas more than one-quarter of all migrants did not respond to the question about their previous residence. The question here is whether respondents considered this information as threatening from fear that it will have some consequences for their remaining in the given settlement.

The disproportion in the number of non-responses also emerged from a comparison with the geographically close general population (Graph 5.6). From the relevant total Roma population 15.6% did not specify a previous place of residence, while in the surveyed general population the share of non-response was 9.5%. Otherwise, only small differences emerged from a comparison with the geographically close general population. So, for example, in the general population migration from neighbouring

Table 5.3 Migrated Roma population age 15+ years by previous residence and type of settlement (in %) Segregated neighbouring municipality other municipality in the district other district in the region other region of Slovakia abroad not answered Individuals 15+ total

50

Separated 15.9 37.7 11.6 7.2 2.1 25.4 100.0

Question: Where did you migrate here from?

Note: Only for individuals age 15+ years who migrated to the municipality.

Diused 18.9 37.8 14.9 8.8 7.5 12.2 100.0

Total 13.0 51.0 12.0 8.7 3.9 11.5 100.0

15.6 43.3 12.8 8.3 4.4 15.6 100.0

R E P O R T O N T H E L I V I N G CO N D I T I O N S O F R O MA H O U S E H O L D S I N S LO VA K I A 2010

Graph 5.6 Migrated Roma population age 15+ by previous residence – comparison with the geographically close general population (in %) 0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

20.6 43.3

other municipality in the district

39.5 12.8

other district in the region

16.0 8.3

other region of Slovakia

not answered

50

15.6

neighbouring municipality

abroad

45

11.9 Roma population

4.4 2.5

Geographically close general population

15.6 9.5

Question: Where did you migrate here from?

Note: Only for individuals age 15+ years who migrated to the municipality.

municipalities was more often cited (20.6% against 15.6% among the Roma population), then from another district in the same region (16% against 12.8%) and from another region of Slovakia (11.9% against 8.3%); among the migrant Roma population, those with a previous residence in another municipality in the district again had a higher prevalence (43.3% versus 39.5% in the general population), and also migration from abroad (4.4% versus 2.5% in the general population).

The compiled empirical data showed that the Roma population, but also the geographically close general population, is relatively narrowly tied with the place of birth and the nearest regions. If a change of municipality or a migration between municipalities is involved, this occurs predominately within the district. Migration between regions is now rare and migration from abroad is all but exceptional.

5.2. Previous versus present residence by level of segregation With the monitoring of migration of the Roma population, the type of settlement in the previous place of residence is among the important indicators. Namely, it can testify regarding the directions toward spatial integration or about the strengthening of segregation of Roma citizens. Graph 5.7 shows the type of previous residence of the “mobile” part of the Roma population. As is obvious, among Roma citizens age 15 years or more who in the course of their life relocated at least one time (within their native municipality or migrated from another municipality), the largest part previously lived directly in a town or village – a total of 60.4%. The previous residence on the margins of a municipality had for the entire rel-

evant subset 13%, while 12.5% reported living in a settlement outside of a municipality (the remaining 14.1% did not respond to the question).

A comparison of the type of settlement by level of exclusion for the present and the previous place of residence could indicate in which direction the habitation of the Roma population is shifting – whether migrating also meant a change in type of settlement or if this did not change. The results of the study suggest more of a shift Graph 5.7 Migrated Roma population age 15+ years by place of previous residence (in %)

14.1 25.3 12.5

13.0 35.1

Directly in a town Directly in a village On the margins – town, village

Outside of a municipality (settlement) Not answered

Question: I previously lived in (previous residence).

Note: For all individuals age 15+ years who do not live in a family home – migrated from another municipality or moved at least once within the municipality.

51

R E P O R T O N T H E L I V I N G CO N D I T I O N S O F R O MA H O U S E H O L D S I N S LO VA K I A 2010

Table 5.4 (Migrated or moved Roma population age 15+ years by place of previous residence and type of settlement (in %) Previously lived: directly in a town directly in a village on the margins – town, village outside a municipality (settlement) not answered Individuals 15+ total

Segregated

Separated 22.8 31.5 11.8 19.3 14.8 100.0

Diffused

Total

23.2 29.5 14.9 14.2 18.2 100.0

29.0 43.1 12.3 5.8 9.8 100.0

25.3 35.1 13.0 12.5 14.1 100.0

Question: I previously lived in (previous residence).

Note: For all individuals age 15+ years who do not live in a family home – migrated from another municipality or at least once moved within the municipality.

toward spatial exclusion (Table 5.4). From the segregated Roma population age 15+ years with experience of migrating 54.3% said that they had their previous residence directly in a town or village, 11.8% of them lived previously on the edge of a town or village and 19.3% listed an identical type of habitation – now and before they lived in a settlement outside a municipality. For mobile Roma citizens currently living separated the situation was very similar: 52.7% lived previously directly in a municipality, 14.9% remained in an identical separated settlement and 14.2% of them listed a segregated settlement as their previous residence. For both types of currently excluded habitations the representation of non-respondents was relatively high (14.8% and 18.2%). In relation to the third group of the Roma population – currently living diffused – a large part of them also lived diffused in their previous place of residence (72.1%). Only 18.1% reported a shift toward integration: 12.3% of them living diffused at the time of the survey had their previous residence on the edge of a settlement, and only 5.8% lived outside a municipality (9.8% did not answer the question).

A comparison with the geographically close general population ended up as expected: the migrated general population gave as their previous residence signif-

icantly more integrated habitation directly in a town or village (79.8% to 60.4%) and gave the separated (2.4% to 13%) or segregated (0.5 to 12.5%) types of previous habitation disproportionately less than the surveyed Roma population. And this difference is expressed despite the higher representation of non-respondents in the general population (17.2% against 14.1%).

Let’s return to the mobile Roma population and follow previous residence by the type of current settlement. As is presented above, the trend with their relocating was a great deal stronger from living integrated in the previous settlement to living separated or segregated than was a change of segregated or separated type of settlement for spatial integration within a municipality. Such a direction is valid for Roma citizens moving within their native municipality, as well as for migrants to the current municipality.

The structure of the Roma population age 15 years and older with experience of moving within their native municipality was differentiated for the individual groups by current type of settlement with comparisons with the previous habitation (Graph 5.9). By moving within the native municipality 62.3% currently living segregated shifted toward segregation – 51.6% of them previously lived directly in the town or village and 10.7% in the separated part of

Graph 5.8 Migrated or moved Roma population age 15+ years by place of previous residence – comparison with the geographically close general population (in %) 0

5

10

15

20

40

45

50

45.4 13.0

On the margins – town, village

52

35 34.4 35.1

Directly in a village

Not answered

30 25.3

Directly in a town

Outside of a municipality (settlement)

25

2.4 Roma population

12.5 0.5 14.1 17.2

Geographically close general population

Question: I previously lived in (previous residence).

Note: For all individuals age 15+ years who do not live in a family home – migrated from another municipality or at least once moved within the municipality.

R E P O R T O N T H E L I V I N G CO N D I T I O N S O F R O MA H O U S E H O L D S I N S LO VA K I A 2010

Graph 5.9 The Roma population age 15+ years with experience of moving within the native municipality by type of present and previous habitation and a comparison with the geographically close general population (in %) 0

10

20

30

Segregated

51.6

Separated

52.7

40

50

60

70

10.7

90

23.4 19.5

Diffused

80

14.3 14.7

66.5

13.0

18.5

Geographically close general population

100

8.0 4.2 0.7 4.6 9.2

85.4 Previously – directly in a municipality

Previously – on the edge of a municipality

Previously – in a settlement outside a municipality

Not answered

Question: I previously lived in (previous residence) Note: For all individuals age 15+ years who do not live in a family home – migrated from another municipality or at least once moved within the municipality.

the municipality. The same trend was also found in those currently living separated: 52.7% of them previously lived directly in the municipality; 14.7% in the course of relocating within the municipality shifted from living segregated to separated and19.5% didn’t change their type of habitation within the village by moving – they lived and still live separated. A look at the composition of the geographically close general population shows a fully different structure. With previous residence those among them living directly in a town or village dominated; this was also shown that they “absorbed” only a minimum of separated or segregated (total 5.3%) individuals.

And as Graph 5.10 shows, the segregation trend was even stronger for the subset of migrants to the present

municipality. Overall 62.3% of those who migrated to segregated settlements previously lived directly in a town or village and 15.2% on the edge of the previous municipality, and 13.8% moved from a segregated to a segregated space. This was similar with those living separated: 62.8% of them previously lived directly in a municipality, 9.5% moved from a separated to a separated environment and 16.2% moved from a segregated settlement to a separated part of the municipality. On the other hand, 83.4% of the Roma population migrating to their present place of residence and who live diffused had their previous residence directly in a town or village; only 7.7% reported living on the edge of a municipality or in a segregated settlement.4

Graph 5.10 Migrated Roma population age 15+ years to the present municipality by type of present and previous habitation and comparison with the geographically close general population (in %) 0 Segregated Separated

10

20

30

40

62.3

60

70

80

15.2

62.8

9.5

Diffused Geographically close general population

50

90

100

13.8

8.7

16.2

83.4

11.5 4.3 3.4

9.1

0.4 81.9

17.7 0

Previously – directly in a municipality

Previously – on the edge of a municipality

Previously – in a settlement outside a municipality

Not answered

Question: I previously lived in (previous residence) Note: Only for individuals age 15+ years who migrated to the municipality.

4 For migrants in the geographically close general population representation of previous residence was as separated and segregated only minimally (0.4%).

53

R E P O R T O N T H E L I V I N G CO N D I T I O N S O F R O MA H O U S E H O L D S I N S LO VA K I A 2010

Graph 5.11 Migrated Roma population age 15+ years by period of migration – for individual types of settlements and comparison with the geographically close general population (in %) 0

10

20

20.0

To 5 years

16.4

8.8

6-10 years

80

9.2

19.7 10.4 11-15 years

90

100

24.8 30.3

23.0

17.7 11.6

70

12.4

17.5

81.9 18.4

60

17.9

32.2

Roma population

50

15.8

19.4

Diffused

Geographically close general population

40

33.8

Segregated Separated

30

10.2 10.5

17.1 23.0

50.8 16-20 years

21 or more years

Question: How many years ago did you migrate?

Note: Only for individuals age 15+ years who migrated to the municipality.

Graph 5.12 Migrated or moved Roma population age 15+ by reason for migration (in %)

0.6

10.9

36.3 13.2

6.3 1.5

2.8 1.4

3.1 5.6

16.2

2.3

Marriage, to live with a partner Family reasons Moving with a family, parents To be independent of parents Personal problems Return to birthplace Loss of a flat (sold, indebted...)

Eviction, unpaid rent Got housing from municipality Better living conditions Other reason (including for work) Not answered

54

Question: For what reason did you relocate or migrate to the municipality?

Note: For all individuals age 15+ years who do not live in a family home – they migrated from another municipality or moved at least once within the municipality.

A comparison of responses from 2010 with the situation five years ago, which could indicate whether the tendency toward segregation upon migration is strengthening or weakening, cannot be carried out, because in the findings from 2005 the question about the type of previous residence was lacking. Information about the year of migration to the present municipality, however, shows that the majority of cases of migration discovered took place after 1990 (Graph 5.11). A total of up to 77% of the migrant Roma population migrated to their present place of residence in the period after 1990; that is, during the past 0 to 20 years; from the migrant general population this was only 49.2%. In the last five years 29.1% of all migrant Roma citizens migrated to their present municipality of residence, but only 18.4% from among the migrant geographically close general population. In the case of migrants for the segregated part of the Roma population 75.2% of migration took place after 1990, while the largest part – as much as a third – migrated to a segregated settlement in the past five years.

5.3. Reasons for moving and migrating In relation to the reasons for moving within a municipality or migration to the present settlement, most responses for Roma citizens age 15 years or older involved various family reasons. Together they made up 60.4% of all responses and are as follows: starting a family (getting married or living with a partner) with 36.3%; moving with a family or parents with 16.2%; to gain independence from parents was 5.6%; and for other family reasons (divorce or separation, loss of parents and the like) an additional 2.3%. Since 10.9% of relevant respondents didn’t reply to the question on reasons for a change of residence, oth-

R E P O R T O N T H E L I V I N G CO N D I T I O N S O F R O MA H O U S E H O L D S I N S LO VA K I A 2010

Table 5.4 Migrated or moved Roma population age 15+ years by reason for moving and type of settlement (in %) Segregated

Separated

Marriage, to live with a partner Family reasons Moving with a family, parents To be independent of parents Personal problems Return to birthplace Loss of a flat (sold, indebted...)

Eviction, unpaid rent Got housing from municipality Better living conditions Other reason (including for work) Not answered Individuals 15+ total

Diffused

39.2 2.0 15.0 4.8 2.3 2.0 0.7 1.3 0.7 19.3 0.7 12.0 100.0

Total

37.9 1.9 11.9 8.2 5.4 1.0 3.3 1.9 5.0 9.0 0.2 14.2 100.0

32.5 2.9 21.0 3.8 1.5 1.3 3.8 1.3 11.7 12.3 0.8 6.9 100.0

36.3 2.3 16.2 5.6 3.1 1.4 2.8 1.5 6.3 13.2 0.6 10.9 100.0

Question: For what reason did you move within or migrate to the municipality?

Note: For all individuals age 15+ years who do not live in a family home – they migrated from another municipality or moved at least once within the municipality

er reasons received a 28.7% share. Among them were better living conditions (13.2%), then provision of housing from the municipality (6.3%), so-called personal problems (3.1%), the loss of a flat or eviction from a flat (together

4.3%), and finally a return to the place of birth (1.4%) and other reasons for changing residence (0.6%).

A comparison with the internal Roma population with the experience of relocating on the basis of type of

Graph 5.13 Relocated or migrated Roma population age 15+ by reason for moving – a comparison with the geographically close general population (in %) 0

5

10

15

45 41.3

7.7 3.1 1.7 1.4 1.7

Personal problems Return to birthplace

2.8 0 0

1.5 6.3

0 13.2 12.9

Better living conditions

Not answered

40

5.6

To be independent of parents

Other reason (including for work)

35

16.2 14.5

Moving with a family, parents

Got housing from municipality

30

2.3 3.1

Family reasons

Eviction, unpaid rent

25

36.3

Marriage, to live with a partner

Loss of a flat (sold, indebted...)

20

Roma population

0.6 2.4

Geographically close general population

10.9 14.6

Question: For what reason did you move within or migrate to the municipality?

Note: For all individuals age 15+ years who do not live in a family home – they migrated from another municipality or moved at least once within the municipality.

55

R E P O R T O N T H E L I V I N G CO N D I T I O N S O F R O MA H O U S E H O L D S I N S LO VA K I A 2010

Graph 5.14 Roma population age 15+ with experience of relocating within a municipality by reason of relocating and comparison with the geographically close general population (in %) 0

10

20

30

family reasons together

40

50

60 55.1

70

80

59.4 64.0 68.3

2.9 personal problems

Return to place of birth

8.6

0.3 0.3 1.2 1.0 1.4 1.0 1.2

Loss of a flat, eviction

Got housing from the municipality

5.1 2.4 0.0 0.4 7.2 17.8

0.0

12.0 10.1 15.5

Better living conditions

Other reason (including work related)

no reply given

0.0 0.3 0.3 0.3

21.3 Segregated Separated Diffused

10.6

3.5 13.5 14.5

Geographically close general population

Question: For what reason did you relocate or migrate to the municipality?

Note: Only for individuals 15+ years, who have lived permanently in the municipality (they did not migrate from another municipality) but have moved at least once within the municipality.

56

present settlement revealed a number of differences in the reasons for moving or migrating. While the strength of family reasons together was in all three subgroups approximately equal – around 60% – the frequencies for other reasons were different. So, for example, 19.3% of those living segregated gave better living conditions as the reason for moving; in the case of separated this was only 9% and for diffused it was 12.3%. A total of 11.7% living diffused, but only 5% of separated and 0.7% of segregated, said they had received housing from the municipality. Reasons like loss of a flat or eviction from a flat occurred more often among those presently living separated and diffuse (more than 5%), while for segregated this was only 2%.

In comparison with such a distribution, the individual reasons for moving in the geographically close general population were represented differently (Graph 5.13).

With their moving within a municipality or migration to a municipality reasons like establishing a family, gaining independence from parents or family problems played a stronger role (approx. 8% more for family reasons); better living conditions as a reason was approximately equal

to the Roma population (around 13%); fewer gave personal problems as the reason; and reasons for a change of residence like loss of a flat, eviction from a flat or provision of housing from the municipality didn’t occur at all.

The reasons for relocating also differed by whether moving within a municipality or migrating to the municipality was involved. In relation to the first group, which had experience with relocating within a municipality (Graph 5.14), the individual reasons were different in frequencies, both within the three subgroups of the Roma population according to type of current settlement and in comparisons with the geographically close general population. Family reasons had the most common prevalence in the case of the general population (they received 68.3%); among the compared groups of the Roma population only those living diffused came close to such a share (64% for family reasons); the separated and segregated groups listed family reasons significantly less (59.4% segregated and 55.1% separated).

Better living conditions as a reason for moving within the place of birth (the second most common reason on average) occurred most for those living segregated

R E P O R T O N T H E L I V I N G CO N D I T I O N S O F R O MA H O U S E H O L D S I N S LO VA K I A 2010

– with 21.3% of them giving this reason; at the same time for the separated groups this reason was given by only 12% and for the diffused just 10%; while in then end this was 15.5% for the relevant general population.

The strongest position for better living conditions as a reason for relocating within a municipality for segregated Roma citizens could at first glance seem paradoxical, but it may have a relatively logical explanation.

At least two are provided here: 1. The living conditions of some segregated citizens could be so unacceptable that even the small change which they achieved by moving within a municipality could be perceived as improving their living conditions; 2. Construction of higher quality dwellings (for example, even of low standard), either for municipal aid or NGOs, which means improved living conditions in comparison with the previous state, could be situated within the segregated environment, that is, outside the main space of the municipality.

The reason for relocating within a municipality specified as “they received housing from the municipality” was offered most often by the Roma population living diffused (17.8%) and then those living separately (7.2%).

So that even “to get a flat from the municipality” does not always have to mean spatial integration.5 The remaining reasons for relocating within a municipality were given much less often. Personal problems as a reason for relocating was given mostly by Roma citizens living separated (8.6%), and then segregated (2.9%), and for diffused and the geographically close general population this reason occurred only rarely. The loss of a flat or eviction from a flat as a reason for relocating within a municipality was declared by 5.1% of separated, 2.4% of those living diffused and 1.2% of segregated; no one from the general population gave this reason.

Among the reasons for migration to a municipality (Graph 5.15) family reasons also had the strongest position. From the relevant Roma citizens, those living sep-

Graph 5.15 Migrated Roma population age 15+ to the present municipality by reason for relocating and comparison with the geographically close general population (in %) 0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

69.5 family reasons together

personal problems

Return to place of birth

59.6

0.7 1.4 1.4 2.9 3.6 0.0

Better living conditions

6.8 9.1

1.4 2.0 4.8 0.0 18.1

2.7 11.1

Other reason (including work related)

no reply given

71.6

1.4 0.0 3.4 3.7

Loss of a flat, eviction

Received housing from the municipality

84.0

2.2 0.0 1.5

16.8 Segregated Separated

5.3

2.9 3.4 3.4 5.3

Diffused Geographically close general population

Question: For what reason did you move within or migrate to the municipality?

Note: Only for individuals age 15+ years who migrated to the municipality.

5 With relocations within a municipality, the year of relocation was not determined; it is therefore not clear for what period relocation within the municipality meant integration to the surroundings and when it meant separation.

57

R E P O R T O N T H E L I V I N G CO N D I T I O N S O F R O MA H O U S E H O L D S I N S LO VA K I A 2010

Graph 5.16 Types of relocation of the Roma population age 15+ for non-family reasons by type of settlement and comparison with the geographically close general population (in %) 0

10

Segregated Separated Diffused Geographically close general population

20

30

40

50

35.2

60

70

80

52.3

15.3

32.8 40.9

51.4

100

12.5

51.9 45.0

90

14.1 43.0

5.6

Migration to the municipality One-time relocating within a municipality

Repeated relocation within a municipality

Note: Only for individuals age 15+ years who do not live in a family home – they migrated from another municipality or relocated at least once within the municipality, namely for reasons other than family reasons.

arated most often gave them as the reason (up to 84%); for segregated this was 69.5% and for those living diffused only 59.6%; for the relevant general population the share for family reasons together was 71.6%.

Better living conditions was among the reasons for migrating to a municipality for 18% of the relevant Roma population living segregated, which again reveals the fact that improving living conditions does not necessarily bring spatial integration. This reason was given relatively often also for the group living diffused, where it received 16.8%; among migrants to separated parts of a municipality it received only 2.7%. At the same time this was also the second most common reason for migrating to a municipality declared by the geographically close population – 11.1% of the total gave it as a reason.

The loss of a flat or eviction from a flat was given as a reason for migration to the present municipality most among those living diffused (9.1%), then separated (6.8%) and finally segregated (3.6%); for the general population no one declared this as the reason for migration.

Personal problems were the reason for migrating to the present municipality in the case of the general population and the Roma population living diffused (approx. 3% of them gave it), while for the group or Roma living separated and segregated it was not found at all or only rarely.

If we look collectively and particularly only at the “relocation for reasons other than family reasons”,6 which includes reasons like personal problems, a return to the place of birth, loss of a flat (sold, due to debts, etc.), eviction, unpaid rent, assignment to municipal housing, better living conditions or another reason, such a perspective allows for

58

still another view of the situation of the Roma population.

Graph 5.16, for example, presents the whole of mobile respondents (migrants to a municipality or those relocating within a municipality) for reasons other than family reasons by type of mobility and type of current settlement.

Among Roma citizens age 15 years or older who at the time of the survey lived in segregated settlements and who had experience of any kind with relocating for reasons other than family reasons, the largest share was made up of those who had moved once within their municipality of residence (52.3%), while repeated relocation within a municipality for non-family reasons scored 12.5%; the share of migrants to segregated settlements for reasons other than family made up 35.2%.

From Roma citizens living separated who gave as the reason for relocating something other than family reasons (that is, personal problems, return to birthplace, loss of a flat, eviction, unpaid rent, obtaining housing from the municipality, better living conditions or still another reason), the most were those who had relocated within the municipality only once (51.9%); repeated relocation within the municipality for non-family reasons, however, had three-times the representation here than for the other subsets (32.8%), while in contrast, only 15.3% migrated from another municipality to a separated environment for non-family reasons.

The distribution for Roma living diffused was different in comparison with the previous two groups: up to 45% of those living diffused migrated to their current municipality for reasons other than family, while not quite 41% of diffused migrants changed their place of residence only

6 A great many motives lead to such a reduction. Since family reasons dominated all subsets of the Roma population and for the general population, and at the same time they are the most common reason given for relocating when tracking internal state-wide mobility among citizens of the Slovak Republic (Development..., 2011), in relation to the life situation of the Roma population there are therefore no differentiations. To track each of the non-family reasons individually is again not possible, because the quantities are too small to allow for additional classifications to be made.

R E P O R T O N T H E L I V I N G CO N D I T I O N S O F R O MA H O U S E H O L D S I N S LO VA K I A 2010

migrated in the period from 6 – 10 years ago (42.1%) and then in the past five years (21.1%). Thus, up to 63.2% of “non-family” migrants came to a separated settlement from another municipality during the past ten years; with expansion to the entire post-1990 period, they made up a total of 84.3%.

In relation to migrations of Roma citizens to the municipality of residence for reasons other than family reasons among those living diffused, the largest part migrated 11 – 20 years ago (44.2%); a significantly smaller part in comparison with the previous two groups of Roma migrants for reasons other than family reasons came to the municipality of residence during the past ten years (40.3% to 57.9% for segregated and 63.2% for separated).

According to the gathered data, it’s as if segregation and separation for reasons other than family reasons in the past years has intensified. But let us remember that shares of migrants to these environments for reasons other than family reasons do not represent very high numbers; therefore, it is necessary to look on the analysis with a certain reserve in relation to the specific percentages provided. We have tried to capture from the existing data at least the basic tendencies or trends; for more valid data regarding mobility for individual types of settlements of the Roma population it would be necessary to conduct a special survey.

Let’s look at the end of this section at relocation for non-family reasons according to type of present and previous settlement (Graph 5.18). For the Roma population which changed its residence (within a municipality or which migrated from another municipality) for reasons other than family reasons, a comparison of the previous and present settlement by type came out rather unfavourable for the segregated and the separated groups.

Among the Roma living segregated who changed their

once within a municipality for reasons other than family, and 14.1% changed residence more than once within a municipality for reasons other than family-related reasons.

Within the geographically close general population in regard to mobility, migration from another municipality for reasons other than family reasons predominated (more than half – 51.4%), while one-time relocation within a municipality represented 43% and repeated relocations within a municipality only 5.6%.

While with segregated and especially separated Roma populations reasons other than family reasons (personal problems, return to birthplace, loss of a flat, eviction, unpaid rent, obtaining housing from the municipality, better living conditions or still another reason) were significantly more common with a change of place of residence within a municipality than with migration to a municipality, for those living diffused and the geographically close general population, reasons for mobility within a municipality other than for family reasons were approximately the same.

With analysis of relocation of the Roma population for reasons other than family it is interesting to track the year of migration, especially in relation to segregated and separated settlements. As Graph 5.17 shows in detail, the migration of the Roma population for reasons other than family reasons to segregated settlements took place for 36.8% in the past five years and an additional 21.1% in the last 6 – 10 years. Thus, a total of 57.9% of all migrations to segregated settlements in the last ten years took place for reasons other than family reasons, and an additional 13.2% took place 11 – 20 years ago, meaning that after 1990 a total of 71.1% of all migrations to segregated settlements occurred for reasons other than family reasons.

Still more evident was the situation for Roma living separated: of all the migrants to separated settlements for reasons other than family reasons, the most

Graph 5.17 Migrations to a municipality for non-family reasons by year of migration and type of settlement and comparison with the geographically close general population (in %) 0

10

20

Diffused

40

36.8

Segregated Separated

30

60

21.1

21.1

7.9

42.1

27.3

Geographically close general population

50

13.0

33.9

5.4 5.4

80

5.3

90 26.3

15.8 32.5

16.1

70

5.3 11.7

2.6 10.5 11.7

37.5

Up to 5 years

11-15 years

21 and more years

6-10 years

16-20 years

Not answered

Note: Only for individuals 15+ years, who migrated to the municipality.

100

5.3 3.9 1.8

59

R E P O R T O N T H E L I V I N G CO N D I T I O N S O F R O MA H O U S E H O L D S I N S LO VA K I A 2010

Graph 5.18 Relocating for non-family reasons by type of previous and present settlement and comparison with the geographically close general population (in %) 0

10

20

30

40

50

70.3

Segregated

Diffused

80

19.4

63.8

Geographically close general population

70

90

10.2

61.2

Separated

60

15.7 12.9

23.4 88.1

Directly in the municipality

Outside the municipality

On the margins of the municipality

Not answered

100 3.7 6.5

9.4 3.5 0 0.9 11.0

Note: Only for individuals age 15+ years who do not live in the family home – they migrated from another municipality or relocated at least once within the municipality, namely for reasons other than family reasons.

place of residence for reasons other than family reasons, up to 70.3% previously lived directly in the municipality and 10.2% on the edge of the municipality; in 15.7% of them this did not involve a change – they exchanged one segregated habitation for another segregated one.

From Roma currently living separated who changed their place of residence for reasons other than family reasons, up to 61.2% of them lived integrated directly in the municipality and by migrating entered into a separated environment; 19.4% of them did not change their type of settlement (they previously and presently lived in a separated part of a municipality) and 12.9% came into a separated environment from a segregated settlement. For that part of the Roma population which at the time of the survey lived diffused and had changed their place of residence for reasons other than family reasons, 23.4% arrived from separated settlements and only 9.4% from segregated.7 Overall, therefore, from the available responses an exclusionary tendency is more evident than a tendency toward integration.

5.4. Mobility from place of present residence In addition to relocation within the municipality of residence and migration to the present municipality, movement in the opposite direction can also be monitored – mobility in the direction away from the place

60

of residence. This can have either a temporary or a permanent character, i.e. it includes different motivated departures from the place of residence without a change in permanent residence or emigrating from the municipality. The type of research carried out was not able to capture the second of these mentioned possibilities, because the starting point for the selection of households was the residence in the selected settlement (see Chapter 2), and statistical data for the surveyed data collection sites in regard to the number of those moving out were not tracked.

So long as temporary migration from the place of residence is involved, a certain amount of attention was devoted to this in the research. For example, the temporary interruption of residence in the native municipality, which is presented in section 5.1 of this chapter, can be included here. It was shown that only 7% of the surveyed Roma population age 15 and older had experience with such mobility outside of the native municipality, while 4.4% reported shorter breaks in residence lasting less than six months, and 2.6% reported breaks longer than a half year.

In a certain sense, for mobility in the direction from the place of residence the question aimed at all members of a household partially showed whether and how long they were outside of their household from the start of the year (2010).8On the basis of responses it was shown that an absolute majority of those surveyed were consistently present in the household from the start of the

7 With the geographically close general population who changed their place of residence for reasons other than family reasons, the share of those arriving from geographically excluded settlements was utterly negligible – only 0.9%.

8 The primary purpose of this question was the identification of relevant individual members of the given household, not the determination of mobility. If a member of the household was at the time of the survey present in the place of residence, the possible interruption of presence in the household from the start of the year was ascertained; for persons currently and long-term absent from the household the reason for the absence was not ascertained.

9 From segregated and separated this was 1.5% and from those living diffused 2.7%; in the case of the geographically close general population the share temporarily absent from their household at the start of the year achieved 2.5%.

R E P O R T O N T H E L I V I N G CO N D I T I O N S O F R O MA H O U S E H O L D S I N S LO VA K I A 2010

Graph 5.19 Reasons for absence from a household from the start of the year – comparison with the geographically close general population (in %) 0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

5.9 3.8 46.6

working abroad

34.6 7.2

working elsewhere in the country

11.5 7.2 0 7.2

visiting relatives

other

50

15.4

undergoing treatment, at a medical institution

in prison

45

4.3

in hospital long-term

in an orphanage

40

11.5 4.3 0

Roma population

1.4 7.7

Geographically close general population

15.9

not answered

15.5

Question: What was the reason for absence from this household from the start of the year?

Note: Only for respondents who were not present in the household from the start of the year in total for more than one month. This involved a very small number (n = 95); the presented percentage values therefore only have an illustrative meaning.

year, and that interrupted presence was reported by only 1.9% of the total set of the surveyed Roma population,9 1.3% of which interrupted their presence in the household for less than a half year and 0.6% for longer. Reasons for absence were varied (Graph 5.19), with the largest share, however, falling to migration for work, in the case of the Roma population primarily abroad. Although it only involves one part, and what’s more a very small part of the Roma population which is covered by this question, it’s as if the responses indicated the presence of a labour migration within it, with a significant predominance of it going abroad.

Attention was also given to migration aboard for work in the questionnaire for households, where a question was inserted addressing the overall experience of members of the surveyed households with working abroad (overall experience in the sense of past and pres-

ent work abroad, but only work of a more regular character or for a longer period). As Table 5.5 shows, the experience of Roma households with work abroad was moderately higher in comparison with the general population: from all surveyed Roma households 27.8% on average had some longer-term or more regular work experience abroad; from geographically close general households this figure was 20.6%.

In both compared groups of households the situation in which only one member had been abroad was the most common. The share of the Roma and the general population was approximately equal if the migration abroad for work of only one household member was compared (16.4% to 15.6%); with comparisons of multiple migrations abroad for work (more household members were or are working abroad) the experience of Roma households was more than two-times higher

Table 5.5 Overall work experience abroad of members of a household – comparison of subsets of Roma households and with geographically close general households (in %)

Yes, one member Yes, more members No, no one has been yet Households total

Roma households Segregated Separated Diffused Total 19.8 14.8 14.6 11.3 13.5 9.4 68.9 71.7 76.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

Geographically close general population 16.4 11.4 72.2 100.0

Question: Has/was/is someone from your household gone abroad for work (regularly or for a longer period)?

15.6 5.0 79.4 100.0

61

R E P O R T O N T H E L I V I N G CO N D I T I O N S O F R O MA H O U S E H O L D S I N S LO VA K I A 2010

Table 5.6 Living conditions of Roma households with and without experience with work abroad – comparison with the geographically close general population (prevalence of selected indicators in %) Roma households by experience with work abroad

General nearby households by experience with work abroad

1 mem. (n=116)

1 mem. (n=56)

2+ mem. (n=81)

No one (n=511)

2+ mem. (n=18)

No one (n=284)

Excellent and very good living conditions in dwelling

29.3

34.5

21.5

91.1

94.4

83.1

Bad or very bad living conditions in dwelling Functional bath or shower in dwelling Functional flushing WC in dwelling Automatic washing machine in household Telephone in the household PC or laptop in the household Internet in the household Decidedly want children to continue after primary school in a secondary school

32.7 49.1 50.0 42.2 82.5 18.4 16.5 34.3

22.0 51.9 49.4 41.3 75.3 21.0 17.3 48.8

43.1 37.2 34.2 23.9 65.7 8.7 4.8 34.5

1.8 100.0 94.6 95.9 98.0 65.3 63.3 85.7

100.0 100.0 94.9 100.0 82.4 64.7 100.0

1.8 95.1 93.7 88.2 93.3 49.6 42.7 76.0

Complete and partial satisfaction with the household financial situation

16.5

13.9

8.3

47.3

44.4

47.5

6.0

18.1

3.2

28.6

50.0

32.0

14.0

15.0

6.5

54.5

44.5

45.5

Possibility for the entire household to go on holiday for a week

3.4

4.9

0.6

41.1

44.4

32.4

Possibility to eat meat or fish each day...

Possibility to buy new seasonal clothing and shoes each year

33.6 15.5

30.9 16.0

14.1 6.8

67.9 53.6

72.2 50.0

54.6 43.3

Possibility to pay an unexpected cost totalling 300 € 1 time or more they didn’t have food for children 1 time or more they weren’t able to cook 1 time or more they didn’t have heat in dwelling The household is (much) better in this ...compared with relatives in another municipality

13.8 48.1 39.8 39.6

9.9 45.2 36.2 39.2

3.3 58.7 42.0 43.4

60.7 16.6 7.6 9.8

83.3 6.3 6.3

53.9 10.6 8.8 9.6

16.7

17.2

13.3

21.8

38.9

17.1

...compared with neighbours on the street ...compared with residents in part of the municipality ...compared with residents of neighbouring municipality

17.4 18.3 9.3

24.7 22.0 9.1

9.7 9.7 3.4

25.5 16.7 15.9

35.3 29.4 29.4

16.0 14.0 11.6

1.8

5.3

1.2

11.3

27.8

7.4

(Very) easily cover costs for children’s education (primary school) Sufficient income for basic needs (food, clothing, housing)

...compared with a common Slovak family

Question: Question: Has/was/is someone from your household gone abroad for work (regularly or for a longer period)?

(11.4% to 5.0%).10 With comparisons of individual subsets of Roma households on the basis of type of settlement, those from segregated settlements declared moderately more overall experience with work abroad (a total of 31.1%); households living separated followed with 28.2%, and finally households living diffused with 23.9%. It is obvious that migration for work abroad is not, according to the data obtained in Roma households, a marginal phenomenon, as it occurs minimally on the same level as in the geographically close general population, if it is not higher. A previous study has already shown the work commitment of the Roma population abroad (Grill, 2011). This survey confirmed departures for

62

work abroad, but it didn’t devote itself to other details about work abroad, such as whether it was official or the primary needs of the labour market, the quality of the work, the form of contract or the duration of the work and the like. But what it did allow for is the monitoring of the impact of work abroad experience of households members on the quality of life in the household.

A comparison of the living conditions of Roma households with experience of work abroad and those without such experiences turned out more favourable for the first group –for households from which one or more members had worked abroad. These households, unlike those without work abroad experience, had better living conditions

10 Here it is necessary at the same time to recall that the chance for general households for multiple work stays abroad were lower also in view of the differing size and makeup of the households (fewer household members, more pensioners – see Chapters 2 and 3). We present a comparison with the geographically close general population for the purpose of illustration; what’s important is in this regard is the situation for Roma households.

R E P O R T O N T H E L I V I N G CO N D I T I O N S O F R O MA H O U S E H O L D S I N S LO VA K I A 2010

and household furnishings, supported their children’s studies in secondary school more, better evaluated their own financial situation, more easily covered their household expenses, came closer to the standard of living common in our society, experienced less material deprivation, and also better evaluated their own life situation in comparison with those around them.11 And all of the tracked indicators ended up more favourable with multiple household experiences with work abroad in comparison with those with only one experience. The geographically close general population also showed equal results,12 only on a level a number of times higher; they had significantly stronger prevalences with favourable indicators and significantly lower with unfavourable. It appears that work mobility abroad improves the standard of Roma (and of the general) households; whether work activities as home play an equal role is the content of the following chapter (See Chapter 9.4 in particular).

Conclusions On the basis empirical data regarding relocation it is possible in conclusion to state that the spatial mobility of the Roma population connected with a change of place of residence is in no way particularly high in an overall view.

More the opposite, as the majority of Roma remain in their municipality of origin, meaning that Roma living segregated and separated are still more “attached” to the place of their birth. But let’s remember that even the geographically close general population did not have a high share of relocation within the municipality and migration to the municipality.

If the Roma population does relocate, this is most often only one time and within the municipality itself – in connection with independence or for other reasons. At the same time Roma recorded, in comparison with the geographically close general population, more repeated relocations within a municipality and more migrations to a municipality. In regard to migration to the current place of residence, this predominately involved migration from another municipality in the same district or directly from a neighbouring municipality; even another district in the same region was found a lot less in responses and another region or from abroad was completely rare.

Reasons for relocating are predominately associated with family and the stages of family life, such as getting married or commencing cohabitation with a partner, relocating with parents, gaining independence from parents or for other family reasons, such as, for example, divorce of loss of parents, etc. Reasons for relocating other than family had about a one-third prevalence, and among these were loss of a flat or eviction, obtaining a flat from a municipality or for better living conditions.

From a number of comparisons of the type of previous and present settlement a stronger tendency toward spatial exclusion was evident over integration of the Roma, particularly in the post-revolution years and involving reasons other than family reasons for moving. But for more strongly worded statements it would be necessary to conduct special empirical research.

The tracking of current migration indicates a relatively broad experience among Roma households with work abroad; it was shown to have minimally an equal or a higher range of work experience abroad than general households from neighbouring Roma communities.

11 For an overall analysis of the indicators of the living and financial situation used and the material deprivation of Roma households (and in comparison with general populations) see Chapter 6, but mainly Chapters 10 and 11.

12 Differences are evident also despite the small number of general households which had a one-time or repeated experience with work abroad.

63

06

Material conditions of life: housing and household furnishings

Housing conditions are a key (direct) indicator of standard of living. Deprivation in housing has fundamental consequences for the life of household members in all conceivable aspects. Therefore, the majority of developed countries have some type of housing policy available, the goal of which is in general to support the development of housing, its accessibility and a certain minimum quality (expressed through the introduction of minimum standards). This applies especially in the case of groups of citizens with insufficient resources. Housing conditions can be assessed from different perspectives – keeping in mind price availability, quality tied to internal or external characteristics, long-term sustainability (for example, costs-to-income ratio, crowding, processes upon the origin of arrears) and the like. According to data from the last wave of EU SILC (2010) surveys, deprivation relating to quality of a dwelling itself is not too high in the population. For example, in 2010 the share of persons living in flats that were too dark was 3% (the average for the EU-27 was 7%); the share of persons living in damp flats was 6% (average for the EU-27 was 16%). On the other hand, the measure of crowded housing in Slovakia is 40.1%, which is one of the highest values among all EU member states.1 Furthermore, the value of the tracked indicators has principally worsened, if we look at the groups on the bottom rungs of the income distribution ladder. Access to housing has also been shown to be problematic: “access to housing, expressed by the number of flats per thousand citizens, has an above average level in Slovakia in comparison with developed states, as well as with other V4 countries” (Kusá, 2011: 70).

In carrying out the research the character of household habitation was tracked through a number of indi-

cators. Some of them rest on the responses of household members; other were identified and verified by interviewers. Attention was paid to the type of dwelling, its size, questions of ownership and rental, but also the type of building materials used. Along with the characteristics of the dwelling itself the level of furnishings were also monitored, where an additional set of indicators were investigated – from access to drinking water, through sources used for hot water, up through ownership of longterm consumer goods. Indicators allow for an analysis of the level of housing and its variability in groups defined on the basis of spatial integration.

6.1. Type of dwelling According to empirical data more than half of all Roma households lived in free-standing brick houses, and 11% lived in brick buildings with two or three flats. Flats in housing blocks were used by a total of 20.8% of households, with most of them living in a blocks with more than ten flats. A total of 15.6% of Roma households lived in non-standard forms of dwellings like a house of wood or from other materials; of these 10% were in a shack, 43% in a wooden house and 1.3% in another type of dwelling. Representation of individual types of dwellings in the set of Roma households differed according to the measure of integration. The highest share of freestanding brick houses and brick houses with several flats occurred in the group of households living diffused (81.6%). In segregated and separated settlements the share of brick dwellings was significantly lower and nonstandard dwellings were significantly more common,

Table 6.1 Structure of Roma households by type of dwelling and type of settlement (in %) Segregated Free-standing brick house Brick house with 2 or 3 flats Flat in a housing block with fewer than 10 flats Flat in a housing block with more than 10 flats Wooden house Dwelling of other materials (shack) Other type (portable, dwelling not intended for housing...)

Households total

Separated 43.5 6.7 6.7 10.9 9.6 20.5

Diffused 49.6 9.5 11.6 16.5 2.1 9.1

Total 64.9 16.7 5.0 11.7 0.8 0.4

52.6 11.0 7.8 13.0 4.3 10.0

2.1

1.2

0.4

1.3

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

Note: Interviewers answered the questions, not respondents.

1 In 2009 the average for the 27 EU member states was 17.7%. The highest measure was found in Latvia (57.1%), the lowest in The Netherlands (2.2%).

65

R E P O R T O N T H E L I V I N G CO N D I T I O N S O F R O MA H O U S E H O L D S I N S LO VA K I A 2010

Graph 6.1 Structure of the set of Roma households by type of dwelling - comparison with 2005 (in %) 0

10

20

30

40

50

Free-standing brick house

52.6 50.3

Brick house with 2 or 3 flats

11.0 13.5

Flat in block of flats with fewer than 10 flats

7.8

Flat in block of flats with more than 10 flats

10.7 13.0

7.6

Wooden house

4.3 5.0

Dwelling of various materials (shack) Other types (portable, dwelling not intended for housing)

60

10.0 12.1

2010 2005

1.3 0.8

particularly among segregated Roma households. The share of households living in dwellings of different materials (shacks) here was two-times higher than in separated settlements. We also find similar differences with the use of wooden houses.

In comparison with 2005 a moderate shift took place in the representation of individual types of dwellings (Graph 6.1): fewer households were recorded living in shacks and wooden houses with the exception of segregated settlements, where in contrast the representation of such households grew. On the other hand, the share of those living in brick houses and housing blocks moderately grew. On the whole, however, it’s possible to say that over the course of five years no dramatic change occurred in terms of the structure of Roma households by type of dwelling. A comparison of the Roma population with the geographically close general population shows differences on the basis of type of dwelling. A higher share of households living in non-standard forms of dwellings was characteristic for the Roma population, similarly as five years ago (0.3% and 15.3%).

Conclusions derived from data about the type of dwelling supplement (and confirm) information about the method of dwelling construction. In the case of external walls the data found “copies” the distribution of types of dwellings mentioned above: houses from fired bricks occurred most often for households from diffused settlements, non-standard building materials (wood, plywood, stone) were used most often in segregated settlements. A similar situation can be identified also in the case of the roofs of dwellings; quality material (roofing tiles) was used most often with diffused dwellings (60%). In separated and segregated settlements tiles were used significantly less, a much more common building material was sheet metal (related to 52.5% of households from segregated and 36.5% from separated settlements, in comparison with 19.2% of diffused households).2 The floor of Roma dwellings consisted most often, without regard to type of settlement, of linoleum, after which was concrete.

Comparison of the situation in the set of Roma and general households revealed tangible differences: more

Table 6.2 Evaluation of conditions for life in dwellings (in %) Segregated Excellent Good Average Bad Very bad (unsuitable for living) Under construction Households total

66

Separated 2.9 13.0 32.8 39.1 11.8 0.4 100.0

Diffused 5.8 17.5 35.8 28.8 11.3 0.8 100.0

Total 8.4 25.6 39.1 22.7 4.2 0.0 100.0

5.7 18.7 35.9 30.2 9.1 0.4 100.0

2 It’s necessary to add that in the use of other, less standard materials (cardboard, asbestos, tar) the differences between individual categories of Roma households were not so large.

R E P O R T O N T H E L I V I N G CO N D I T I O N S O F R O MA H O U S E H O L D S I N S LO VA K I A 2010

Table 6.3 Dwellings of Roma households by the number of residential rooms (in %) Segregated 1 residential room 2 residential rooms 3 residential rooms 4 residential rooms 5 or more residential rooms Households total Average number of rooms

Separated 38.8 34.6 21.3 4.2 1.2 100.0 1.95

quality building materials were much more commonly used in dwellings of general households (whether in regard to walls, roof or floor), less quality and non-standard building materials were, in contrast, more common in the Roma population.

The conditions of Roma households for life in the dwellings were evaluated by assessors predominately as average (35.9%) or bad or very bad (39.3%).3 Bad or very bad conditions for living occurred especially in segregated settlements (50.9%). Roma households living diffused had the highest occurrence of positive evaluations (34%). The objectively better conditions for living in the geographically close population was also confirmed by data on the more quality materials used with the construction of houses and flats: in the opinion of researchers up to 38% had excellent conditions in dwellings and another 48% had good conditions.

6.2. Size characteristics of dwellings An important characteristic of the quality of housing is the size of the dwelling, which can be evaluated on the basis of the number of residential rooms and/or on the basis of the size of the total floor space for living. In terms of the number of rooms for living, most Roma households lived in two-room dwellings, which was followed by oneroom houses/flats. More than one-fifth or Roma households had three rooms for living available, and approximately one-tenth of Roma households lived in dwellings with four or more rooms. The study from 2005 stated that from the viewpoint of size of dwelling it is possible

Diffused 25.0 42.6 23.0 5.3 4.0 100.0 2.26

Total 25.5 37.2 21.3 8.8 7.1 100.0 2.43

29.7 38.2 21.9 6.1 4.1 100.0 2.22

to observe significant differences by degree of spatial integration of the Roma population, as well as comparisons with the general population (UNDP, 2006). Five years later the mentioned facts were again confirmed. Dwellings with one residential room occurred most often in segregated settlements. Separated dwellings once again had the highest share with two residential rooms. Four-room dwellings and those with a higher number of rooms among Roma households occurred rarely; however, in households living diffused their share moved above average for the entire set of Roma households. The average values provide summary information (Table 6.3), which show that with increasing spatial integration, the average number of residential rooms also grows.

Data on the representation of dwellings with a different number of rooms provide only part of the required information, because the quality of the living conditions does not depend only on the size of dwellings but also on the size of the household which lives there. The values of the indicator “number of persons per residential room” confirm that we find cramped housing most often in segregated settlements. The number of persons here per residential room was 3.3 on average. Households from separated and diffused settlements were better in this indicator. Table 6.4 presents, along with the aggregate average indicators, the share of households in which a different number of people were apportioned into one room. In nearly one-quarter (24 %) of all Roma households 4 or more people were apportioned to a single residential room. Such a high occupation for dwellings (4 or more persons per room) was most widespread in segregated settlements, re-

Table 6.4 The number of person per one residential room in Roma households (in % and averages) Number of persons per 1 room 2 or more person per residential room (%) 3 or more person per residential room (%) 4 or more person per residential room (%) Average number of persons per residential room

Segregated Separated Diffused All Roma households Share of households of the entire number of households of the given type (%) 75.8 66.4 59.0 67.1 46.2 36.1 34.6 38.3 32.5 20.5 18.0 23.7 3.3 2.7 2.4 2.8

3 Life conditions in dwellings were evaluated by researchers.

67

R E P O R T O N T H E L I V I N G CO N D I T I O N S O F R O MA H O U S E H O L D S I N S LO VA K I A 2010

Table 6.5 Average size of floor space of Roma dwellings (in m2) Average size (m2) Segregated Separated Diffused

Standard deviation

41.9 49.2 54.8

Standard error 29.4 28.5 28.7

Confidence interval (95%) Lower limit Upper limit 1.9 38.1 1.8 45.6 1.9 51.2

45.6 52.8 58.5

Note: The testing criterion F in the ANOVA procedure had a value of 12.1 with two degrees of freedom and a significance level of α = 0.001.

Table 6.6 Structure of Roma households by number of m2 per one member (in %, average in m2) Segregated To 5 m2 per person 6-10 m2 per person 11-15 m2 per person 16-20 m2 per person 21+ m2 per person Households total Average number of m2 per person

Separated 38.9 28.9 13.4 7.9 10.9 100.0 10.0

lating to nearly one-third of these households. And it is possible to state that a significant lack of space for living and cramped conditions are a component of the life for a not insubstantial part of the Roma population, and is so in all types of settlements.

We obtain a similar picture upon looking at the size of dwellings, expressed by the size of the floor space in square meters. A significant difference was found particularly between households from the lowest and the highest degrees of integration by settlement. While in the subset of households living diffused the average area was 54.8 m2, in separated and segregated settlements lower values were achieved (49.2 m2 and 41.9 m2).

The results of an ANOVA statistical procedure4confirmed that statistically significant differences exist between households from different types of settlements in terms of size of dwellings (measured in square metres), namely a 1-percent level of significance. And these are households from segregated settlements, which from the viewpoint of average area of dwellings significantly differ statistically from households from the other two subsets, denoting higher spatial integration.5 Among households living separated and diffused no statistically significant differences in average area of dwelling were demonstrated.

And in the case of size of floor space it is necessary to take into consideration the number of persons living there. Table 6.6 provides a glimpse at the structure of Roma households by how many m2 occur per person in

68

Diffused 23.5 30.0 20.2 11.2 14.4 100.0 12.3

Total 14.3 30.2 21.5 13.8 20.2 100.0 15.6

26.0 29.3 18.3 11.3 15.1 100.0 12.6

a household. Standardised values of dwelling size are divided into a number of categories. Dwellings with a smaller area per person are the domain of segregated settlements: nearly 40% of these households had an area of 5 m2 or less for one member. This involves a very striking representation of cramped dwellings, which in combination with the frequently low quality of life, represents an important accumulation of problems which should be included with further considerations about the direction of Roma public policies. In separated and diffused settlements such crowded dwellings occur a great deal less often (which doesn’t mean, however, that it is a negligible problem).

Average values for space per one member provide an additional confirmation of the differences in the sizerelated characteristics of dwellings (Table 6.6).

A comparison with the geographically close general population shows that this revealed a significantly different structure of housing by the number of residential rooms: the share of houses/flats with a smaller number of residential rooms here was well lower than among Roma households. In the case of one-room abodes the difference represented more than 25 percentage points, while with two-room dwellings it was more than 20 percentage points. We next find dwellings with a higher number of residential rooms more often among households belonging to the general population. The overall unfavourable situation of Roma households from the viewpoint of dwelling size in the end is

4 The null hypothesis of equality of variance was not disproved (Levene’s test for homogeneity of variances was not statistically significant), so that the given procedure could be used.

5 According to the Bonferroni post-hoc test statistically significant differences of a 1-percent level of confidences exist between households from diffused and segregated dwellings. Statistically significant differences for confidence levels of 5% were found between separated and segregated households.

R E P O R T O N T H E L I V I N G CO N D I T I O N S O F R O MA H O U S E H O L D S I N S LO VA K I A 2010

Graph 6.2 Size of dwellings by number of rooms – comparison of Roma households and households from the geographically close general population (in %) 0% General households

10%

3.9

20%

30%

17.2

Roma households

40%

60%

70%

34.7

3 rooms

also confirmed by a comparison of the average values with the set of households from the geographically close general population (2.22 rooms to 3.56 rooms). If we take into consideration the number of household members, the difference seems much more striking: in Roma households nearly three persons (2.8) occurred per one room on average, and in geographically close general households this was only one person per room. Differences between these groups are also confirmed by data on the size of the total floor space of dwellings.

While households from the general population lived in homes and flats with an average size of 82.4 m2, Roma households lived on average in much smaller living areas – 48.6 m2. For the general population the area per person on average was 36 m2, while in the set of Roma households this was only 13 m2.

Between the years 2005 and 2010 a change occurred in the size structure of dwellings of the set of Roma households. The share of dwellings with one residential room was in 2010 higher by 10 percentage points. The share of two-room dwellings also increased, by 6 percentage points. The representation of dwellings with a higher number of rooms decreased, while the most visible fall was recorded in dwellings with four rooms for living (nearly 9 percentage points). Thus, in 2010 the surveyed Roma households lived on average in smaller dwellings in terms of the number of rooms than they had five years before.

90%

100%

20.5

38.2 2 rooms

80%

23.6

29.7 1 room

50%

21.9

6.1 4.1

5 and more rooms

4 rooms

6.3. Ownership relations to house/flat and property The majority of Roma households (72.4%) lived in 2010 in dwellings which belonged to members/members of the family. Ownership of a dwelling by members of the closest family was the most commonly given response by households from diffused settlements, while the weakest representation was from households from separated settlements. The share of flats and houses in municipal and state ownership had the opposite structure in these two groups. While the prevalence of these forms of ownership in diffused households (11.7%) was below the average for the entire set of Roma households, among households living separated it was well above average (21.5%). Segregated households in this regard were located somewhere in the middle (17.3%). The dominant position of separated households in terms of the share of dwellings in public ownership in 2010 was a confirmation of their position from 2005, when the share of such flats and houses was likewise easily the highest (19.6%).

The situation of Roma households as a whole differed markedly from the situation in the geographically close general population. The share of dwellings in ownership of a family here represented 94.7%, which means that other forms of ownership, including municipal and state, did not play an important role. For a comparison, the share

Graph 6.3 Structure of the set or Roma households by the number of residential rooms – comparison with 2005 (in %) 0 5 and more rooms 4 rooms

5

10

15

20

25

30

40

4.1 5.5

45 2010 2005

6.1 15.3 21.9

3 rooms

26.9 38.2

2 rooms 1 room

35

32.2 29.7 19.7

69

R E P O R T O N T H E L I V I N G CO N D I T I O N S O F R O MA H O U S E H O L D S I N S LO VA K I A 2010

Table 6.7 Structure of the set of Roma households by declared form of ownership of dwelling and type of dwelling (in %) Segregated My family My relatives live outside the household Another person Town (municipality)/ state Co-op Others Total

Separated 73.8 2.1 4.6 17.3 0.6 1.6 100.0

Diffused 67.0 2.0 4.2 21.5 1.7 3.6 100.0

Total 76.5 4.2 5.9 11.7 1.3 0.4 100.0

72.4 2.8 4.8 17.0 1.1 1.9 100.0

Note: Households which did not respond to the question were not taken into consideration. The responses “another member of the household” and “another private person” were included in the category “other person”.

of dwellings in town or state ownership represented only 2% in comparison with 17% among Roma households.

Both sets also differed in the extent to which certain forms of ownership in their representation varied according to the period during which the households lived in the given residence. In the set of Roma households surveyed the share of households with their own dwelling was lowest among those who lived in the given dwelling the shortest period of time – specifically, with households living in the given location at most five years this was 51%; among households with residence lasting 6 to 10 years approximately 72% lived in their own dwelling, and among households with residence of 11 to 15 years this was 74%. Together with this, among households with the shortest residence in their current dwellings, the prevalence of dwellings in ownership of the municipality or state was much more common. In the set of households from the geographically close general population it is likewise possible to find differences of such character, but

not such significant ones: among households with residence in the range from 1 to 5 years, 77% lived in their own dwelling, in comparison with 86% of households with residence from 6-10 years and 88% with residence from 11 to 15 years.6 The share of Roma households living in their own dwellings was in comparison with 2005 lower by 10 percentage points. A number of factors which can lead to different or alternative explanations for such changes could have caused the mentioned shift. Focusing here on changes in the structure of ownership of Roma dwellings, we give attention to the increased share of dwellings in the ownership of towns (municipalities) or the state. The mentioned changes were most significant with households from segregated settlements. It is among these very households that the sharpest growth in the share of dwelling in public ownership took place: while in 2006 not quite 7% of them lived in dwellings in public ownership, in 2010 this was already 17%. This was

Graph 6.4 Structure of the set of Roma households by declared form of dwelling ownership – comparison with the situation in 2005 (in %) 0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

81.8 2.8 3.8 17

Town (municipality)/state Co-op Another person Other

11.4 1.1 1 4.8 1.8 1.9 0.2

Note: Households which did not respond to the question were not included in the calculations.

70

90

72.4

My family My relatives

80

6 We find similarly high (or even higher) values also among households with a longer residence in the given dwelling.

2010 2005

R E P O R T O N T H E L I V I N G CO N D I T I O N S O F R O MA H O U S E H O L D S I N S LO VA K I A 2010

Table 6.8 Structure of the set of Roma households by provision of rent (in %) Segregated Free At an advantageous price Full price No conditions agreed upon Others Total

Separated 26.8 7.1 25.0 1.8 39.3 100.0

Diffused 18.2 26.0 36.4 5.2 14.3 100.0

Total 28.3 13.2 39.6 5.7 13.2 100.0

23.7 16.7 33.9 4.3 21.5 100.0

Note: Only those Roma households living in dwellings not in the ownership of any family members or other household member are included. This represented a total of 186 households.

accompanied by a reduction in the representation of households living in their own dwellings from 88% to 67%, which again represented the largest change in the three monitored types of settlements.

Households in which no family member or other household member owned the dwelling were asked about the method of providing rent (the question related to approximately one-quarter of Roma households).

Among them approximately half stated that they paid for the provided lodgings: 34% full price and 17% lived in lodgings for an advantageous price. A total of 24% of Roma households had rent free-of-charge available, which most often involved a place belonging to relatives living in a different dwelling. Rental of a dwelling with no agreed-upon conditions related to a very small part of the set (4.3%). Interpretation of the mentioned distribution of responses is made difficult by the high representation (21.5%) of those households which responded to the given question with “another possibility” of rent provision (most of them were among households from segregated settlements – up to 39.3%). It is possible to assume that either this was the result of not understanding the question or an unwillingness to provide information about the real form of relations to the dwelling where the household lived.

While in segregated settlements rent of a dwelling was the most common solution within the “other possibilities”, in diffused and separated settlements the most households had a rental offered for the full price.

Overall, however, payment of the full price represents only the smaller part of the category of methods by which housing rentals are handled within the set of Roma households. If we add up all forms of favourable rent, whether this means free-of-charge housing, housing for an advantageous price, or housing without specific agreed upon conditions – the resulting share in all three monitored groups is higher than the share of renters paying the full amount. If we look at the individual forms of favourable rents individually, then a number of differences are found which, however, do not allow to de-

termine clearly which type of settlement shows the most advantageous (or least favourable) conditions for renting of flats or houses. On one hand it is true that rent freeof-charge is often provided in diffused and segregated settlements; households from separated dwellings were below average in this regard among the entire set of Roma households. On the other hand separated households showed the significantly highest share of rentals for an advantageous price.

Unlike flats and houses, property in the ownership of family members occurred less often. Some 58% of all Roma households had a house or flat on their own property.7 In comparison with flats and houses public ownership had a stronger representation in regard to property: more than one-quarter of Roma households (28%) lived in dwellings located on lands in ownership of municipalities or the state. Lands owned by municipalities or the state were listed especially in segregated settlements, by 37% of households (31% of households from separated settlements and 16% living diffused).

Housing blocks were most often located on public lands, and this was true for all types of settlements. If we look at dwellings from non-standard materials, then segregated settlements show on public lands the highest share of wooden homes and together with separated settlements also the highest share of shacks. The situation of the Roma and geographically close households was fundamentally different, because in the general population up to 93% of households had dwellings on their own property, and only 3% of their homes and flats stood on public lands.

6.4. Access to water and its quality Access to quality drinking water is considered as a basic human right, a fact confirmed by a resolution of the United Nations General Assembly from July 2010 (GA/10967; Škobla – Filčák, 2011). Easy access to water in our geographic area is taken as a given. The Report

7 Households which did not respond to the question were not taken into consideration.

71

R E P O R T O N T H E L I V I N G CO N D I T I O N S O F R O MA H O U S E H O L D S I N S LO VA K I A 2010

Table 6.9 Structure of compared sets by main source of household water (in %)

Public mains in household Pipe from yard, garden Well or borehole in yard Public tap in municipality Water from spring Water from a creek Water from relatives/neighbour’s dwelling Other sources Total

Roma households Segregated Separated 30.7 8.4 16.4 27.3 8.8 3.4

57.8 6.1 15.6 7.4 4.1 0.0

51.7 14.4 22.9 6.8 0.8 0.0

46.8 9.6 18.2 13.8 4.6 1.1

80.0 15.0 4.7 0.0 0.0 0.0

5.0

7.8

3.4

5.4

0.3

0.0 100.0

1.2 100.0

0.0 100.0

0.4 100.0

0.0 100.0

Diffused

on the Living Conditions of Roma Households mapping the situation for the year 2005 showed that it is impossible to speak of this as a given in the case of Roma settlements (UNDP, 2006). Current data from the year 2010 confirm the existence of enduring deficiencies in this regard. First of all, again a higher measure of diversification of water sources was determined in Roma households in comparison with the geographically close general population. Fewer than half of Roma households had water from public water mains connected to their abode in comparison with more than two-thirds of households belonging to the general population. A quarter of Roma households used sources of water from outside of their own households.8 In the geographically close population water from such sources is almost never used at all. Water obtained outside the space of the dwelling included some very different sources. It is possible to rank water from a spring or creek as fully nonstandard regarding quality of water – but 5.7% of Roma households used such sources. In the three monitored groups of Roma households we find different patterns of access to water. External sources were most often used in households from segregated settlements (44.2%). A public water source in a municipality in particular was here, in comparison with the other two categories of Roma households, used a great deal less often – the share of households which used water from

Geographically close general households

Total

this source was in segregated settlements more than three times higher than the shares among households in separated and diffused settlements. On the other hand, the measure of use of public water mains in households was below the level for the entire set of Roma households.

A problematic approach to water also signals the fact that external sources of water are not always found in close proximity to Roma dwellings – 41.6% of Roma households which drew water from sources outside of their own dwelling9 had to go more than 50 metres for it (in comparison with 2005, in 2010 the share of these households increased). More than a third of Roma households used water from a distance of 11 to 50 metres. Roma households which drew water from sources outside their own dwelling had on average to go 128 metres for water, and the largest average distance of a water source from a dwelling was in households from separated settlements (190 m). Households living diffused which used sources of water outside the dwelling were on average 150 m distance from these sources of water.

Roma from segregated settlements had to cover the shortest distance (91 m).

Despite the variety of primary water sources, the majority (84%) from the total set of Roma households declared the water used as “good for drinking”. The measure of this consent, however, differs by type of set-

Table 6.10 Structure of Roma households by distance of the main water source from dwelling (in %) Segregated to 10 metres 11-50 metres more than 50 metres Households total

72

Separated 24.3 36.9 38.8 100.0

Diffused 21.7 30.4 47.9 100.0

Total 20.8 37.5 41.7 100.0

23.1 35.3 41.6 100.0

8 The share of Roma households using water outside the home was lower in 2010 in comparison with 2005 also because in 2010 the placement of a well or borehole was specified in the questionnaire – namely in the spaces of the household’s yard. Those households subsequently responded to the question regarding distant of water source from the dwelling.

9 This involves households which did not use public water in the household, pipes from the yard/garden or well/borehole in the yard.

R E P O R T O N T H E L I V I N G CO N D I T I O N S O F R O MA H O U S E H O L D S I N S LO VA K I A 2010

Graph 6.5 Evaluation of water quality to which Roma households had access (in %) 100% 90% 80%

3.7 5

2.6 8.5

91.3

88.9

Separated

Diffused

9.5 19.5

70% 60% 50% 40% 30%

70.6

20% 10% 0% Segregated

not suitable for any purpose not suitable for drinking, but suitable for another purpose sometimes good for drinking good for drinking Note: Households which did not respond to the question were not taken into consideration.

tlement. The lowest share of households with such an opinion was among those from segregated settlements (70.6%). It was shown that households in segregated settlements evaluated the water used as less suitable for drinking (19.5%) or even as “unsuitable for drinking, but not other purposes” (9.5%) more often than those in separated and diffused settlements. Those Roma households which did not consider water suitable for drinking were asked to describe the way that they acquired drinking water. Among the most common methods was drawing water from a spring, boiling water or using public sources in the municipality. Unlike

year 2005, when the report stated that the opinions of the geographically close and the Roma population did not differ regarding water quality (UNDP, 2006: 44), in 2010 it’s possible to state more significant differences.

In contrast to the set of Roma households, nearly all households from the geographically close general population (98.6%) declared the waster they used as suitable for drinking; the prevalence of more negative evaluations in this regard were negligible.

Access to hot water certainly ranks among the fundamental needs of life and is a key for observing generally expected standards of hygiene and creating the conditions for full participation in the life of a society.

In groups exposed to the risk of social exclusion, it represents an important foundation for participation in the majority of preferred forms of social integration, like developing social contacts with surroundings, searching for work, travelling for work and the like. According to data from 2010, 6.7% of Roma households did not have access to any source of hot water, and the most such cases occurred for the group living diffused (10.1%) and the least in segregated settlements (4.5%). More often the absence of a source of hot water for the group of diffused households in comparison with the other types of settlements could be the result of the fact that in segregated and separated settlements dwellings of lower quality (shacks, wooden homes), in which it is easier to establish some alternative source of heat than in more standard dwellings in a municipality (in the case that it involves disconnection from standard sources), occur more often.

The most frequent method of securing hot water among Roma households was wood or coal-burning stoves, which were used in more than half of such households. Other sources had a significantly weaker representation. Stoves were used particularly in households living in surroundings with a weaker measure of integration – in separated and segregated settlements.

The predominant methods of securing hot water in Roma populations differed from those used in the

Table 6.11 Structure of compared sets by source of hot water in the household (in %)

Public or collective water main Gas water heater Electric water heater Wood, coal boiler Gas stove Electric stove, hot plate Coal, wood stove No source of hot water Total

Roma households Segregated Separated Diffused Total 5.1 7.8 12.7 3.4 5.7 6.8 14.4 18.4 16.9 5.5 7.0 7.6 1.7 1.6 1.7 1.7 1.2 3.0 63.6 52.9 41.4 4.7 5.3 10.1 100.0 100.0 100.0

Note: Households which did not respond to the question were not taken into consideration.

Geographically close general households 8.5 5.3 16.6 6.7 1.7 2.0 52.6 6.7 100.0

42.7 23.5 23.5 6.4 0.6 0.0 3.1 0.3 100.0

73

R E P O R T O N T H E L I V I N G CO N D I T I O N S O F R O MA H O U S E H O L D S I N S LO VA K I A 2010

Table 6.12 Structure of Roma households by method of bathing of household members (in %) Segregated Bath or shower in dwelling with running water Bath in dwelling without running water Wash-basin, bucket In dwelling of family/friend Public washroom in municipality (community centre) Total

Separated 28.4 25.4 43.5 2.7 0.0 100.0

Diffused 44.8 24.9 28.6 0.4 1.3 100.0

Total 50.2 29.1 18.6 1.7 0.4 100.0

41.3 26.5 30.1 1.5 0.6 100.0

Note: Households which did not respond to the question were not taken into consideration.

households of the geographically close population. Unlike in Roma households, hot water here was obtained especially through a public or collective water main. The share of households with this source of hot water was approximately five-times higher than that of the set of Roma households. Far behind were water heaters, whether running on electricity or gas. When we compare the situation in 2005 and 2010, at both times wood or coal-burning stoves were rather dominant: more than half of all Roma households used them.

Data on sources of hot water indicated that among Roma households less standard methods of securing personal hygiene can also occur. A look at the structure of these households by how members bathe partially confirms this assumption. Up to 30% of them use a wash basin or bucket for bathing, an additional 26.5% use a bath not connected to a source of running water. In more than half of Roma households members bathe in a non-standard way. This is true particularly for

segregated settlements, where a wash-basin, bucket or bath without running water is used by 69% of households. Facilities in the dwellings of family or friends were more often used. The low level of use of public washrooms in municipalities is worthy of attention, namely without regard to the degree of spatial integration.

Data thus indicates that despite a running grant program, centres do not sufficiently fulfil the purpose for different reasons.10

6.5. Waste and method of its removal One of the key problems negatively affecting the living conditions of local administration and Roma settlements within them is the handling of waste. Important factors in this regard are strict legislation, the increasing volume of waste and the higher cost of its handling. With deepening awareness and with the possibility of citizen

Table 6.13 Method of waste disposal in Roma households by type of settlement and comparison with geographically close general households (in %) Roma households Segregated Separated

Diffused

Geographically close general households

Total

Organised collection in residential building or nearby

24.1

31.1

24.8

26.6

23.2

Disposal by town from household container

19.8

25.6

47.1

30.9

59.0

Disposal by town from common containers for households

35.4

25.6

21.0

27.3

17.8

15.2 2.1

6.3 2.9

2.9 0.0

8.1 1.7

0.0 0.0

0.8 2.5 0.0 100.0

1.3 6.3 0.8 100.0

0.0 4.2 0.0 100.0

0.7 4.3 0.3 100.0

0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0

Throw into dump Throw away into nature (forest behind village) Throw away into river Burning of waste Burying of waste Households total

Note: Households which did not answer the question or which used the variant “otherwise” were excluded from the analysis.

74

10 In the grant policies of the Ministry of Work, Social Affairs and Family of the Slovak Republic (i.e. outside the FSR) in the years 2004 to 2011 the construction of personal hygiene and laundry centres was supported in 38 municipalities. Grants totalling 1,217,164 euro were provided by the ministry for this purpose. It would be necessary to perform an evaluation of the programme with the goal of identifying the reasons for poor use of these centres.

R E P O R T O N T H E L I V I N G CO N D I T I O N S O F R O MA H O U S E H O L D S I N S LO VA K I A 2010

Table 6.14 Regularity of waste collection during the year in Roma households by type of settlement and comparison with the geographically close general population (in %)

Regularly Occasionally Not at all Households total

Roma households Segregated Separated Diffused Total 62.6 83.9 95.7 31.3 14.1 3.9 6.1 2.0 0.4 100.0 100.0 100.0

Geographically close general households 81.1 16.1 2.8 100.0

99.2 0.8 0.0 100.0

Note: Households which did not answer the question or which used the variant “otherwise” were excluded from the analysis.

Table 6.15 Reasons why waste is not collected regularly in households from the Roma population (in %) Segregated No system for waste collection exists Non-payment of waste collection fee Other Households total

Separated 29.1 61.6 6.3 100.0

Diffused 28.0 52.0 20.0 100.0

Total 11.1 55.6 33.3 100.0

27.4 61.1 11.5 100.0

Note: The listed data relates only to households in which waste is not regularly collected. Households which did not answer the question or which used the variant “otherwise” were excluded from these analyses.

involvement in decision-making activities the question of establishing dumps has become very complicated and at the same time can represent a case of unequal treatment for marginalised groups.

Many residents attempt to avoid fees associated with waste management by using illegal dump sites.

One task of a municipality, which is placed on them by law, is to liquidate such dumps. At the same time it is unlikely that legal and illegal dumps can originate where wealthy citizens or those who have political power happen to live. Conversely, it is generally known that some Roma settlements are located directly on old dumps or new dumps or in their nearby vicinity. This is not a voluntary decision of Roma communities regarding their site of settlement, but is the result of processes of exclusion, in the framework of which Roma were forced to build dwellings in risky environments or on otherwise unusable terrain (Filčák, 2007).11 Organised waste collection or collection directly in a residential building or in its proximity, the disposal of containers from households or a collective container for households was given by 84.8% or Roma households in comparison with 100% of all geographically close general households. This striking disparity can suggest an acute deficiency of financial resources in households for the ever more expensive service of waste liquidation. However, it can also indicate a different approach on the part of local administration in the organisation of waste management between Roma parts and nonRoma parts of municipalities (see Table 6.14).

Data also shows that residents of Roma settlements, unfortunately, choose unsuitable methods of waste disposal, such as, for example, throwing rubbish onto a pile or throwing it away into nature. The worst situation in this regard is in segregated and separated Roma settlements, where up to 26.5% of households choose such a method of dealing with waste. This fact hints at the poverty of people as well as the inability of self-organisation of communities to collectively eliminate elementary health risks that endanger the survival of the entire community.

Deficiencies, and especially inequalities, in the field of waste management, which originate either with insufficient financial resources of households or the different approach of local administration to Roma settlements (or their combination), are evident in the following data: Nearly 100% of households in the geographically close general population reported that waste is collected regularly during the year, and only 81.1% of Roma households responded positively to the same question, while the most irregular waste haulage was reported in segregated settlements. Up to 31.3% of those living in this type of settlement responded that waste is hauled away only “occasionally” and 6.1% responded that they don’t haul away waste at all.

Supplemental information about the reasons waste is not collected is provided in Table 6.15. According to it more than 61% of respondents from these households, in which waste is not collected, declared as the reason the fact that they don’t pay the fees for waste collection.

11 An interesting case study on the origin and genesis of squeezing of a Roma settlement into increasingly risky areas is described in the publication (Schaeffel, 2009).

75

R E P O R T O N T H E L I V I N G CO N D I T I O N S O F R O MA H O U S E H O L D S I N S LO VA K I A 2010

Graph 6.6 Structure of Roma households with an interrupted electricity connection by length of disconnection (in %)

23% 36%

29% 12%

1 month 2 months

3 months 4 and more months

Note: Households with an interrupted electrical supply represented 23.5% of all Roma households.

On the other hand, 27.4% of those households reported the absence (non-existence) of a system of waste collection from their place of residence. This data might indicate also the above-mentioned different approach of local administration to waste management in Roma parts of municipalities.

6.6. Household goods In the process of mapping household goods, not only ownership of “standard” long-term consumer goods is determined, but also facts relating to the accessibility and use of electrical energy, heating or waste disposal. In a great majority of Roma households (92%) the main source of lighting was electrical energy, and this is most often used in households living diffused (97.9%) and least often in segregated settlements (88.3%). In the geographically close general population electrical energy is used by almost all households. Candles and pocket flashlights were used by 6.4% of Roma households, and this most often occurred in households from separated dwellings (9.8%). Other sources of lighting were completely marginal. While 76.5% of Roma households utilising electrical energy for lighting had a connection to a source of electricity during the entire year,12 18.3% of them had an interrupted connection.

76

The share of households with an interrupted connection was highest in segregated settlements (22.2%). The value for the subset of households from separated settlements (19.6%) was also above average. Among households from diffused settlements, 13.7% had a connection to electrical energy with interruptions. In households from the geographically close general population only a very small number had an interrupted supply of electrical energy.

An interrupted connection to electricity was not always only a short-term experience in Roma households: 28.9% of households with an interrupted connection did not have electricity for two months, and 12.2% had to live without electricity for three months.

More than a third of Roma households which reported having an interrupted electricity supply remained four months or more without electricity. Differences between the individual sets of Roma households were not significant in this regard. The most common reason for suspending electricity in Roma households was the fact that they did not have the money to pay for it (68%). More than one-tenth of households had to face the problem of an interrupted connection, power outages or broken down power lines.13 Graph 6.7 Structure of Roma households with an interrupted power supply by reasons for disconnection (in %) 2.5 3.3

4.9

9.0

12.3

68.0

Forgot to pay Didn’t have the money Malfunction, broken down power line

Entire housing block switched off Other Reply not given

Note: Households with an interrupted electrical supply represented 23.5% of all Roma households.

12 If we speak about periods of the whole year, we mean a situation from the start of the calendar year up to the moment when the empirical research was carried out.

13 The number of households without electricity was lower than it was possible to observe in other classifications which would provide more detailed information.

R E P O R T O N T H E L I V I N G CO N D I T I O N S O F R O MA H O U S E H O L D S I N S LO VA K I A 2010

Table 6.16 Structure of surveyed sets by method of heating their dwelling (in %) Roma households Segregated Separated Diffused 3.8 9.5

Radiators – central heating Radiators with input from gas, electric or coal boiler Gas heaters Electric heaters Wood or coal-burning stove Other Households total

Geographically close general households

Total 8.8

7.3

48.3

3.8

3.7

10.9

6.1

35.7

2.9 3.8 83.7 2.1 100.0

5.8 2.9 77.3 0.8 100.0

6.7 2.9 69.8 0.8 100.0

5.1 3.2 77.0 1.2 100.0

6.7 0.6 7.6 1.1 100.0

Note: Households which did not respond to the question were not taken into consideration.

Heating for Roma households was, similar as with hot water, secured especially through wood or coal-burning stoves (77%). This method was used especially in segregated settlements (83.7%), which implicates the intensive demand through the use of heating materials.

Other sources were used a great deal less. For example, only 7% of Roma households had radiators connected to a central heating, and the so-called “gamatky” only 5% of them. A comparison of Roma households and households from the geographically close population reveals the chasm-like difference in the securing of heat in dwellings. In the general population, standard methods of securing heat were used – through radiators with central heating or with a connection to another heating element. The share of households with central heating was among households from the geographically close population more than six-times higher than in the set of Roma households and approximately twelve-times higher than in the case of segregated settlements. In contrast,

wood or coal-burning stoves played a much less important role in the set belonging to the geographically close general population.

In the majority of studies of living conditions household goods are monitored through the presence, or absence, of a set of long-term consumer goods; for example, in regular statistics of the EU SILC, which covers the entire population. What is researched is not whether households have the given item available or not, but also why it does not have it. The goal is identification of forced absence, which is not a result of free choice on the basis of certain preferences or life style, but is the result of financial limitations. In Roma households the presence of seven items was ascertained, from which some can be categorised as basic (washing machine, refrigerator) and others as above-standard furnishings (the Internet). Roma households showed in regard to these seven items a different measure of forced absence. Roma households most of all could not afford

Graph 6.8 Forced absence of long-term consumer goods – comparison of the situation of Roma households and households from the geographically close general population (in %) 0

10

20

60

70

62.4 61.5 0.8 6.8 2.8

23.5 5

Automatic washing machine

51 11.9

Common washing machine Refrigerator

50

15.8

PC or notebook

Telephone

40

18.9

Internet

TV

30

50.2 0.6

Roma households General households

14.4

Note: Additional numbers up to 100% represent the share of those who did not answer the question; telephone = fixed line or mobile.

77

R E P O R T O N T H E L I V I N G CO N D I T I O N S O F R O MA H O U S E H O L D S I N S LO VA K I A 2010

Table 6.17 Furnishing of Roma households with long-term consumer goods by type of settlement (in %) Segregated Yes Can’t afford it Refrigerator Common washing machine Automatic washing machine Telephone* TV PC or notebook Internet

No for other reasons

Separated Yes Can’t afford it

Diffused Yes

No for other reasons

Can’t afford it

No for other reasons

73.3

20.4

1.7

80.7

16.0

2.9

85.8

6.7

3.3

57.6

21.3

16.3

54.5

24.2

16.4

51.0

15.1

26.8

19.2

62.1

10.4

25.8

50.0

17.2

35.1

41.0

15.5

61.3 84.6

27.1 10.0

6.3 0.8

68.0 89.3

24.2 8.2

6.6 2.0

71.5 93.7

19.2 2.1

4.6 0.4

5.8

72.1

17.9

11.1

61.1

25.0

16.7

51.5

26.8

2.5

70.4

22.5

9.8

62.7

24.2

11.3

54.0

30.1

Note: Additional numbers up to 100% represent the share of those who did not answer the question; telephone = fixed line or mobile.

the Internet and a computer. Half of Roma households could afford to obtain an automatic washing machine, and 23.2% due to insufficient finances did not have a telephone available. Approximately 14% did not have a refrigerator. The situation in Roma households was diametrically different form the situation in households belonging to residents who lived in the geographical vicinity, where the share of forced absence was significantly lower. Securing ownership of a refrigerator, telephone or washing machine represented a problem for a great majority of these households.

The ability to secure the mentioned goods changed by the degree of integration. In the great majority of cases, the households which could not purchase the given item were highest in segregated settlements. With the

increasing measure of integration this share dropped (with the exception of a common washing machine). It seems that a dividing line could perhaps be drawn between households from diffused settlements on one hand and households from separated and segregated settlements on the other. If we change the perspective and look at the ownership of individual items, we obtain the same interesting picture. A television and a refrigerator belong to the most common items in Roma households (without regard to the measure of integration). A total of 84% of households in segregated settlements owned a television, and in the remaining two types of settlements this number was even higher. A refrigerator was among the goods for three-quarters of households in segregated settlements and even more common in separated and dif-

Graph 6.9 Forced absence of long-term consumer goods in Roma households by type of settlement (in %) 0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

54.0

Internet

62.7 70.4 51.5

PC or notebook

TV

61.1 72.1

2.1

8.2 10.0 19.2

Telephone

24.2 27.2 41.0

Automatic washing machine

50.0 62.1

15.1

Common washing machine

24.2 21.3 6.7

Refrigerator

78

16.0 20.4

Segregated Separated Diffused

R E P O R T O N T H E L I V I N G CO N D I T I O N S O F R O MA H O U S E H O L D S I N S LO VA K I A 2010

Table 6.18 Accumulation of forced absence of long-term consumer goods in Roma by type of settlement (in %) Segregated One item Two items Three items Four items Five items Six items Seven items Households total

Separated

Diffused

6.2 12.5 27.1 12.1 7.9 7.5 5.4 78.8

Total

5.7 11.9 19.7 13.1 8.2 7.4 2.9 68.9

12.1 16.3 19.2 10.0 2.5 3.8 1.7 65.7

8.0 13.6 22.0 11.8 6.2 6.2 3.3 71.1

Note: This involves the total share of households who endure the forced absence of at least one of the seven mentioned items. Additional numbers up to 100% represent the share of households which did endure forced deficiencies.14

fused settlements. A telephone and a common washing machine were among the goods which more than half of households in all three types of settlements owned.

The mentioned three objects can be considered as standard, since they are owned by a majority of the population. The forced absence of these items can thus be considered as an example of a combination of material and social deprivation.

The absence of some of the goods which at present can be considered as essential for the fulfilling of basic life needs, can have a negative impact on the quality of life of households. Unfavourable effects can perhaps be expected, if several of these goods are lacking from a household. The accumulation of forced absence of long-term consumer goods leads not only to a worsening of (an often already unfavourable) living situation, but can also limit attempts to change it in the

future, since the missing household furnishings hinder the connecting and observing of social contacts, searching for work and the like. For this reason we calculated an indicator of cumulated forced absence of long-term consumer goods (material deprivation), which determines what share of households can afford a certain number of the seven tracked goods (one, two, three up to all seven).

As follows from Table 6.18, the share of households first with a number of goods which they could not afford, increases and then continually drops. In all, 13.6% of Roma households could not afford two items, and more than one-fifth of Roma households did not have three of the goods due to financial problems. Forced absence of four of the goods affected more than a tenth of Roma households. The situation in segregated and separated settlements was more serious than the situation

Graph 6.10 Accumulation of forced absence of long-term consumer items – a comparison of the situation in Roma households and the geographically close general households (in %) 0

5

10

13.6 5.0

Three items

22.0 1.4

Four items

Seven items

25

11.1

Two items

Six items

20

8.0 8.0

One item

Five items

15

11.8 0.3 6.2 0.3 6.2

Roma households General households

0.1 3.3

14 We point out, however, that this means that the given share includes only those households which own all of the items. Conversely, it can also include those who do not have them, however for another reason than they cannot afford it.

79

R E P O R T O N T H E L I V I N G CO N D I T I O N S O F R O MA H O U S E H O L D S I N S LO VA K I A 2010

in households living diffused – the share of households which could not secure a larger number of the seven tracked items was higher in them.

On the basis of the share of households with an accumulation of the highest number of long-term consumer goods, it’s possible to state that Roma households are most often located in unfavourable living conditions defined by the absence of necessary furnishings than the geographically close general population. As Graph 6.10 shows, both lines track a more or less similar sample, however, on different levels.

Conclusions In this chapter attention was focused on dwellings, their size, questions of ownership and type of building materials used. Along with the characteristics of the dwelling itself, the level of its furnishings was also monitored, as well as access to water, method of waste disposal and sources of hot water used. On the basis of the data, it can be stated that more than half of all Roma households lived in free-standing brick houses. An additional 11% of households lived in brick houses with two or three flats. More than 20% of households lived in flats in residential homes, and the majority of them lived in residential blocks with more than ten flats. Some 16% of Roma households lived in non-standard forms of dwelling, as in a house from wood or an abode from various materials. Although in comparison with 2005 rather fewer households were recorded as living in shacks and wooden houses (which could indicate the running process of building of municipal rental flats within Programmes for the development of housing), in the course of five years no dramatic changes occurred from the viewpoint of structure of Roma households by type of dwelling. The significant lack of space for living and crowded conditions is a part of the life of no small part of the Roma population in all types of settlements. In terms of the number of rooms, it’s possible to say that in 2010 surveyed Roma households lived on average in smaller dwelling than five years ago.

The majority of Roma households (more than 70%) in 2010 lived in dwellings which belonged to a member of the household or a member of the family. The dominant position of separated households from the viewpoint of share of dwellings in public ownership in 2010 was confirmation of the situation in 2005, when the share of such flats and houses was likely well higher. This fact

80

again can point to the running process of construction of so-called flats of lower standard and relative progress in the solution of the housing problem of the marginalised Roma population.

New data repeatedly confirmed the existence of lingering problems from the viewpoint of access of Roma communities to drinking water. First and foremost, a higher measure of diversification of sources of water in Roma communities was again found in comparison with the geographically close general population. Less than half of Roma households had water from public water mains in their dwelling. The problematic approach to water signifies the fact that external sources of water were not always found near Roma dwellings, and 42% of Roma households which drew water from sources outside of their own dwelling had to go more than 50 metres for it (in comparison with 2005 this share of households increased).

Analysis of data also showed deficiencies in the field of waste management, which can originate either due to a lack of financial resources of Roma households or the different approach of local administration to Roma settlements. Organised collection of waste, whether in the form of collection directly in the residential building or in its proximity, collection from a household container or from a common container for households was reported by up to 100% of general households in the geographic proximity, but only 85% of Roma households.

In the great majority of Roma households (92%) electric energy was the main source of lighting, with the most often used in households living diffused and the least in segregated settlements. Access to electrical energy, however, was often interrupted and also for longer time periods: nearly 30% of them did not have electricity for two months, 12% had to live without electricity for three months, more than a third of Roma households with an interrupted supply remained without electricity for four or more months.

In the study the furnishings of households were also monitored through the presence, or absence, of a set of long-term consumer goods. More than two-thirds of Roma households could not afford the Internet and a computer, half could not afford to acquire an automatic washing machine, 23% did not have a telephone available due to insufficient finances, and approximately 14% did not have a refrigerator. On the basis of these data it’s possible to state that Roma households are often located in unfavourable living conditions defined by the absence of necessary furnishings.

07

Health status and accessibility of health care

The module devoted to the health of the Roma population was relatively extensive. It began with the study of chronic illnesses and invalidity, continued with overall illness and health problems in the course of the past year, including the use and accessibility of health care services, and ended it with a subjective assessment of actual health status. The following chapter offers a selection of the most interesting findings for the relevant Roma population; and as in other sections – also a comparison with the geographically close general population or between the different groups of the Roma population. In view of the fact that in past years several health indicators have become a part of regular statistical surveys,1 in the scope of the boxes the situation for all citizens of Slovakia is concurrently outlined.

7.1. Occurrence of chronic illnesses and invalidity One of the basic indicators which statistical surveys orientated on the health of citizens use is the spread of chronic illnesses in a population. This data is based on

the personal self-reports of respondents, not on the result of expert assessments, which is a prerequisite of claims for socio-political transfers.2 In the survey of the living conditions of Roma households a similar method of identifying chronic illness was used. On the basis of this, it was shown that the declared occurrence of chronic illnesses in the Roma population, naturally, differed significantly according to the definition of the basic initial group, because with increasing age it has a rapid growth tendency (Table 7.1). Approximately one-fifth of the Roma population age 6 years or older suffered from a chronic disease, and with a shift in the age interval to the group age 15 and older, this was 24.2% and after restricting the population to age 15-54 years the share of individuals with a chronic disease was 18.2% (for the group 15-64 years it was 22.0%).

With all groups of the basic population Roma living diffused had the highest share of chronic illnesses and residents from segregated settlements had the lowest.

This could be a consequence of the overall younger population, of a higher share of children and young people in segregated and separated settlements (see Chapter 3.2), with whom in general fewer health care problems of a chronic or long-term character are associated,3 than

Table 7.1 Occurrence of chronic illnesses in the Roma population in different defined groups – comparison of subsets and with the geographically close general population (in %)

6+ years total 16+ years total 15+ years total 15-64 years total 15-54 years total Generational groups 6-24 years 25-54 years 55+ year

Roma population Segregated Separated 17.5 23.0 22.4 21.1 16.8

20.6 25.4 24.4 21.4 16.5

22.1 25.9 25.8 23.6 21.3

20.0 24.8 24.2 22.0 18.2

29.7 32.6 32.1 24.0 17.5

7.6 20.3 72.5

9.1 20.7 75.3

9.8 27.4 64.3

8.8 22.8 71.2

9.5 19.3 57.9

Diffused

Geographically close general population

Total

Question: Do you have any long-lasting or chronic illness or long-lasting health problem (specified for a period of 6 months or longer)?

Note: Health status was surveyed for all members of the selected households age 6 years or older. Respondents who did not answer the question were not included in the calculations.

1 Let’s recall for example, the harmonised annual EU SILC survey on the incomes and living conditions of households and individuals, which has a stable group of indicators relating to health and accessibility to health care (EU SILC, 2010), or the specialised survey of the Statistical Office of the Slovak Republic from 2009, which Slovakia also participated in, EHIS 2009 – European Health Interview Survey, which was carried on a set of 4,972 persons age 15 years and older (EHIS, 2009).

2 Evidentiary and administrative data on morbidity by individual types of illnesses is offered by the National Health Information Centre in its regular health care yearbooks or specialised publications (http://www.nczisk.sk/Documents/rocenky/rocenka_2009.pdf), or the Report on the State of Health Care in Slovakia, published by the Ministry of Health of the Slovak Republic, the most recent being from year 2011 (MH SR, 2011).

3 The rapid growth of long-lasting or chronic illnesses or long-lasting health problems with increasing of age also applies generally for the entire population of Slovakia (see Box 7.1).

81

R E P O R T O N T H E L I V I N G CO N D I T I O N S O F R O MA H O U S E H O L D S I N S LO VA K I A 2010

an expression of an actual difference in the occurrence of chronic illness between the individual groups defined by type of settlement. This also confirms to a certain measure the mutual comparison of three generations: for the youngest in the 6-24 years age bracket the occurrence of chronic illness was approximately equal in all three subsets of the Roma population (around 9%); with the middle generation, defined as age 25-54 year, the subset living diffused had the highest share of chronic illnesses (more than 27% versus about 20% among segregated and separated); and for the oldest generation, age 55 years and older, those living diffused were in contrast the best (by nearly 10% of chronic illnesses less than in the segregated and separated). The poor living conditions in segregated settlements, probably also supported by less consistent approach to personal health and worse access to the health care system,4 was expressed in higher age by the significantly higher occurrence of chronic illnesses of their residents.

The age structure, with great probability, also intervenes in a comparison with the geographically close general population. In the surveyed general population chronic illnesses were distributed a great deal more, when the wider initial population was compared without a limitation on the right side of the age interval (for the population age 6+ years the share of chronic illnesses was 20.0% among the Roma as opposed to 29.7% from individuals representing the geographically close general population; with the population age 15+ years the share was 24.2% versus 32.1 %). After exclusion of the oldest age groups, the difference between the

Roma and the general population was practically wiped away: with comparisons of the population age 15-64 years it was lowered to 2 percentage points (22% of Roma to 24% of the general) and after narrowing the population to 15-54 years it resulted in a moderate acceleration in favour of the Roma population (18.2% to 17.5%). A still more flexible effect of age composition also implies in this case a comparison of generations: the occurrence in the youngest group was approximately equal for the Roma and the general population, but for the middle generation it then rose on the side of the Roma population and for the group older than 55 years there was significantly more chronic illness among Roma. Such a result indicates more rapid growth and earlier occurrence of chronic and long-term illnesses on the side of the Roma population.

The occurrence of chronic illnesses in the Roma population age 6+ years was in 2010 higher than in 2005 and was so on the level of the entire set of persons surveyed as well as on the level of individual groups defined by the measure of integration of the settlements in which they lived (approximately by 3-6% more). The gap between the Roma and the geographically close population, however, remains more or less unchanged. Therefore, for data from 2010 it is also possible to state what the report from five years ago stated: the lower level of chronic illnesses or long-term poor health in the Roma population age 6+ years in comparison with the general population, as well as its growth with the increase in the measure of integration of Roma settlements, is difficult to explain as an indicator of better health status of the

Graph 7.1 Occurrence of chronic illnesses in the Roma population age 6+ years by type of settlement and in the geographically close general population – comparison of the situation in 2005 and 2010 (in %) 0 Segregated Separated

5

10

15

20

Geographically close general population

30

35

13.7 2005

17.5 14.4

2010 20.6 19.8

Diffused Total Roma population

25

22.1 15.8 20.0 26.8

29.7

Question: Do you have any long-lasting or chronic illnesses or long-lasting health problem (speciďŹ ed for a period of 6 months or longer)?

Note: Health status was determined for all members of the selected households age 6 years or older. Those respondents who did not answer the question were discarded from the calculations.

82

4 Another part of this chapter, as well as accompanying research activities of a qualitative character carried out within this project or previous research studies, points out the worse access of health care and lower ability to assess the real seriousness of an illness and the overall state of residents of segregated Roma settlements (UNDP, 2006; Kolarcik et al., 2009).

R E P O R T O N T H E L I V I N G CO N D I T I O N S O F R O MA H O U S E H O L D S I N S LO VA K I A 2010

Table 7.2 Roma population age 6+ with chronic illnesses by type of illness and sex (in %) Roma men Cardiovascular disorders Respiratory disorders Joint and bone disorders Disorders of the nervous system and sense organs Mental disorders Endocrinal disorders Digestive system disorders Urinary tract and genitalia disorders Oncological illness Other chronic illness Doesn’t know, didn’t answer Individuals age 6+ with chronic illness total

Roma women 26.4 14.6 15.4 12.5 12.9 4.3 6.4 1.4 2.5 1.5 2.1 100.0

Total 32.9 13.9 9.8 11.2 8.1 7.5 4.1 6.1 2.0 1.0 3.1 100.0

29.7 14.3 12.5 11.8 10.4 5.9 5.2 3.8 2.3 1.5 2.6 100.0

Question: What type of chronic illness is involved?

Note: Health status was surveyed for all members of the selected households age 6 years or older. The share of chronic illnesses was 20% for the entire Roma population age 6+ years.

Roma population. Such a conclusion would not be in accordance with existing knowledge and the absence of signs that could lead to some rapid radical change. For this reason, it is possible to interpret the data found (from 2005 as well as 2010) with awareness of the fact that it can also involve (besides the influence of different age structures of the compared groups) a result of the “worse access to health care services (and therefore to diagnosis of illness) in large sections of the Roma population, or a different approach to health (ill health is not considered to be a problem.” (UNDP, 2006: 32).

The majority of persons from the Roma population older than 6 years with long-term health problems stated that their illness was diagnosed by a professional (86.3%). Only 5.6% of them admitted chronic problems with health without an official diagnosis, and 8.2% did not reply to the question.5 The most common chronic illness in the Roma population age 6 or older was cardiovascular disorders, with an occurrence of nearly 30% (Table 7.2). Behind these, with a considerable gap, were respiratory disorders and allergies 14.3%, disorders of the locomotive organs with 12.5% and disorders of the nervous system and sense organs with 11.8%. In comparison with 2005 the gap between the occurrence of cardiovascular disorders and the prevalence of other disorders widened. On the other hand, the order of the most common chronic illnesses in 2010 did not vary much from the order in 2005. The occurrence of some long-term illnesses differed in men and women. The most significant difference appeared with cardiovascular disorders, where

the share for women was higher by more than 6 percentage points, and with disorders of the locomotive organs, which affected more men than women (the difference was again nearly 6 percentage points). In comparison with 2005, there was a general narrowing of the differences between men and women in the occurrence of chronic illnesses.

Inhabitants living near the surveyed Roma population showed a different makeup of chronic health problems than that of the Roma population, and upon narrowing the age interval to 15-64 years.6 In the general population age 15-64 years cardiovascular disorders also had the highest representation; however, they related to a larger part of the set: the share of persons with cardiovascular disorders was higher by nearly 6 percentage points in the geographically close population. Disorders of the locomotive organs also appeared more often, occurring in one-fifth of this population (20.8%) in comparison with 15% of Roma. Endocrine disorders, digestive system disorders and nervous system and sense organ disorders also showed a moderately higher occurrence; other disorders occurred more often in the Roma population. A significant difference was found in the representation of mental disorders. While in the Roma population every tenth person was affected, among the geographically close general population this was more or less marginal (just over 2 %).

Health problems of a long-term character can have serious impacts on quality of life. As the EU SILC from 2009 showed, 11% of the population older than 16 years

5 After the exclusion of non-respondents the share of chronic illnesses diagnosed by a physician was 93.9% and 6.1% for undiagnosed illnesses. But in both cases (after factoring in the exclusion of non-respondents) the share of diagnosed chronic illnesses in the Roma population was smaller when compared with the general population. The result for the geographically close general population was as follows: 91.1% of illnesses diagnosed by a professional; 3.5% not; and 5.3% did not reply to the questions (after exclusion of non-respondents 96.3% of diagnosed illnesses to 3.7% undiagnosed).

6 In view of the different age structure among Roma and the general population, for correctness we are comparing the population defined by the age interval of 15-64 years.

83

R E P O R T O N T H E L I V I N G CO N D I T I O N S O F R O MA H O U S E H O L D S I N S LO VA K I A 2010

Graph 7.2 Occurrence of chronic illnesses in the Roma population age 15-64 years by type of disorder – comparison with the geographically close general population (in %) 0

5

10

15

20

25

12.0 8.9 15.0

Joint and bone disorders

20.8 10.1 10.7

Disorders of the nervous system and sense organs

10.8 2.4 6.8

Endocrinal disorders

8.3 6.1

Digestive system disorders

Oncological disorders Other chronic disorders

40 36.9

Respiratory disorders

Urinary tract and genitalia disorders

35 31.2

Cardiovascular disorders

Mental disorders

30

8.4 4.2 3.0 Roma population

2.8 1.8

Geographically close general population

1.0 1.8

Question: What type of chronic illness is involved?

Note: The listed data is for the 15-64 years age group. The share of chronic illnesses made up 22% of the entire Roma and 24% of the general population age 15-64 years.

had to significantly limit their activities due to some health problem, and an additional 23.2% had to proceed with partial limitations (Statistical Office, 2010: 60). According to the EHIS 2009 survey, the share of the population age 15 or older greatly limited in common activities was 6.7% and partially limited was 31.4% (EHIS, 2009: 11). Together the share of persons limited in common activities due to health problems was similar according to both surveys: 35 – 38%. As Table 7.3 shows, according to this study the situation found was significantly different, which was caused by the fact the question for limitations in common activities was not asked of all respondents but only those who mentioned some chronic disorder or some long-term health problem. Large limitations in daily activities were reported by 39% of the Roma population with chronic illnesses; 47.5% had to partially limit their activities. Together then long-term health problems are negatively expressed in the daily life of more than 86% of persons. The situation was moderately different in the geographically close general population. The share of those significantly limited was lower and the share of those partially limited was

84

again higher. The share of persons suffering from chronic health problems who did not have to cope with any limitations was also significantly higher. Furthermore, this share corresponded to the situation between individuals from households living diffused. Upon restricting to the 15-64 years age group, the share of large limitations decreased moderately in both compared populations, but in basic tendencies this did not change the situation found. The most limitations appeared in segregated environments, where at the same time the highest share of non-respondents occurred.

Let us recall once again that the occurrence of chronic or long-term illnesses and their implications in the study were surveyed on the basis of self-report of respondents; that is, it did not involve the result of an expert evaluation. It therefore says nothing about possible claims for compensation and the like. But on the other hand, within the scope of the study the drawing of different types of social benefits was tracked, including those which are intended for health-disabled persons, which allows additional information to be obtained about the context of the chronic illnesses reported by respondents.7

7 The drawing of beneďŹ ts was determined for the past month prior to carrying out the study.

R E P O R T O N T H E L I V I N G CO N D I T I O N S O F R O MA H O U S E H O L D S I N S LO VA K I A 2010

Table 7.3 Degree of limitation of daily activities of the Roma population with chronic illnesses – comparison with the geographically close general population (in %) Roma population Segregated Separated Population 6+ years Large limitations Limitations but not great No limitations I don’t know Total 6+ years Population 15-64 years Large limitations Limitations but not great No limitations I don’t know Total 15-64 years

Diffused

Geographically close general population

Total

40.8 45.4 5.7 8.0 100.0

39.3 48.8 4.5 7.5 100.0

37.0 48.0 13.0 2.0 100.0

39.0 47.5 7.8 5.7 100.0

27.0 57.8 13.1 2.1 100.0

40.0 45.0 5.7 9.3 100.0

35.4 54.4 6.1 4.1 100.0

35.3 49.7 12.4 2.6 100.0

36.8 49.8 8.2 5.2 100.0

25.7 57.3 15.8 1.2 100.0

Question: To what extent are you limited in your daily activities because of this chronic illness?

Note: Health status was surveyed for all members of selected households age 6 years and older. The share of chronic illnesses was 20% for the entire Roma population age 6+ years and 29.7% of the entire general population age 6+ years; and 22% of the total Roma population age 15-64 years and 24% of the general population age 15-64 years.

It has been shown that nearly one-quarter of Roma age 6 years or older who suffers from chronic illnesses or long-term medical problems draws a disability pension.

Other types of transfers were represented in this category a great deal less. The highest share of persons drawing a disability pension was found in the set of Roma from segregated settlements (29.7 %). For comparison – in the set of Roma from separated settlements this share was lower by 11 percentage points, and in the set of Roma from households living diffused it was lower by 7 percentage points. With other transfers the most significant differences occurred in the case of the sickness benefit. The share of persons with chronic difficulties who drew a sickness benefit was highest among Roma from separated settlements – compared with the two remaining categories this involved an approximately two-times higher occurrence of these replacements for a working wage. Differences were also shown between the surveyed Roma and members of the geographically close general population.

They related, however, only to the drawing of disability

benefits. The disability benefit among members of the general population with chronic medical problems occurred significantly less than among Roma with long-term health difficulties – the share of beneficiaries was in the general population lower by 7 percentage points.

7.2. Common illnesses, seeing a doctor, prescription medicine Common illnesses or health problems,8 which do not have a chronic character also occurred more often in the Roma population than chronic problems: they related to more than half of the study set (52.4%), similarly as with the set from the geographically close general population (52.1%). They occurred most often among individuals living in segregated settlements (55.3%), least often among persons from households living diffused (48.5%).

Half of the Roma population (50.5%) reported that as a consequence of common health problems it had to in-

Table 7.4 Drawing of selected social transfers by members of the Roma population age 6+ years suffering with chronic illnesses (in %) Segregated Disability pension Benefit for compensation

Separated

Diffused

Total

29.7 3.2

18.7 4.8

22.7 2.0

23.4 3.3

Benefit for increased expenditures

2.5

5.4

1.0

3.0

Sickness benefit

3.2

7.6

3.6

4.8

Note: Percentage values in the table show the share of Roma with chronic health problems that draw a relevant social benefit. Respondents who did not respond to the question about the drawing of a social benefit or who did not know how to answer were not included in the calculations.

8 The flu, toothache as well as injuries and the like are considered as health problems and common illnesses.

85

R E P O R T O N T H E L I V I N G CO N D I T I O N S O F R O MA H O U S E H O L D S I N S LO VA K I A 2010

Graph 7.3 The drawing of selected social transfers by members of the Roma populations age 6+ years suffering with a chronic illness – comparison with the geographically close general population (in %) 0

5

10

15

20 16.4

Disability pension

23.4 3.6 3.3

Benefit for compensation Benefit for increased expenditures Sickness benefit

25

1.1

Roma population

3.0

General population

3.0 4.8

Note: Percentage values in the fields of the table show the share of Roma and the general population with chronic health problems who drew a relevant social benefit. Respondents who did not respond to the question about the drawing of a social benefit or who did not know how to answer were not included in the calculations.

terrupt its activities – they had to stop going to work or school or had to stop performing other common daily activities. The monitored subset of the Roma population did not significantly differ in this regard. Common daily activities were interrupted more commonly in the geographically close general population (57.5%). The study data showed that seeing a doctor in the case of a health problem were a common thing in the Roma population, although not every health problem was consulted in this way. Approximately half of the Roma population saw a doctor with every health problem (Table 7.5). About 41% sought out a doctor only in some cases. Seeing a doctor each time a health problem was discovered was prevalent particularly among individuals from Roma households living diffused (their share was about 10 percentage points higher than the value for the entire set of Roma population – 56.3% versus 45.8% for segregated).

The highest share of those who saw a doctor only occasionally despite health problems (with some problem yes and with another no) occurred in segregated settlements and then in separated Roma communities.

The most common reason for not seeing a doctor in the Roma population was the conviction that the given health problem didn’t require it. Such a position interested one-third of the relevant9 examined set (32.8%).

Approximately one-fifth (21.7%) reported waiting on a spontaneous improvement in health status. The third most common reason was a lack of financial resources which related to 17.7%. The first of the reasons named was the most widespread among the population in segregated (39.4%) and separated settlements (33.2%). In the Roma population living in diffused settlements, the reason for not seeing a doctor was in particular the expectation that the problem would improve all by itself (27.4%). An unfavourable financial situation as a barrier to seeing a doctor (upon the occurrence of a health problem) was found most often in separated settlements (19.9%), and this played the smallest role in the population living diffused (13.7%). The presented patterns of behaviour differed from those which it was possible to identify among residents belonging to the geographically close general population. The personal layman’s

Table 7.5 Frequency of seeing a doctor upon the occurrence of a health problem – comparison of the situation in the set of Roma population and the geographically close general population (in %)

Yes, with each problem With some yes, with some no No, with none No reply Total 6+ years

Roma population Segregated Separated Diffused Total 45.8 47.7 56.3 47.2 45.3 30.2 4.0 4.0 9.1 3.1 2.9 4.4 100.0 100.0 100.0

Geographically close general population 49.5 41.7 5.4 3.4 100.0

Questions: Have you had visited with these health problems doctor?

Note: Health status was determined for all members of the selected households age 6 years and older.

86

9 Let us remember that we are talking in this part about Roma with health problems who only visited doctor sometimes or never.

58.9 33.7 5.8 1.6 100.00

R E P O R T O N T H E L I V I N G CO N D I T I O N S O F R O MA H O U S E H O L D S I N S LO VA K I A 2010

Graph 7.4 Reasons for not seeking out a medical examination in the Roma populating age 6+ with health problems – comparison with the geographically close general population (in %) 0 We couldn’t afford it

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

17.7 1.4 21.7

Waiting for the problem to improve

26.5 32.8

It wasn’t necessary

46.4 15.8

Other

Roma population

12.9

Geographically close general population

12.0 12.8

Don’t know, didn’t respond

Question: What was the main reason why you did not seek out a medical examination; weren’t you offered an examination or treatment?

Note: Health status was determined for all members of selected households age 6 years or older.

opinion that it is not necessary to see a doctor with an illness, was given by 46.7%, and waiting for the spontaneous improvement of health status was actually 26.5% in this population. We see that in both sets the unwillingness to see a doctor occurred most often for the same two reasons. However, insufficient finances played only a marginal role in the geographically close general population: it related to only 1.4% of the members of the surveyed set.

Perhaps then to sum up, that avoiding seeing a doctor was caused most often by a “natural” attempt at handling a problem oneself, and this was so in both the Roma and the general population. In comparison with the geographically close general population, however, financial limitations very often entered into the decision in the set from the Roma population.

In the case of seeing a doctor, a large majority (85%) was prescribed medicine which it was necessary to purchase at a pharmacy. This share changed only moderately in the monitored subsets. Keeping in mind several limitations and risks which members of the Roma ethnicity must face, respondents were asked whether they had acquired the prescribed medicines. A total of 70.5% of the Roma population acquired all of the prescribed medicines that were prescribed. One-fifth of them acquired only some of the medicines and 2.3% none. The share of persons who after seeing a doctor obtained all the medicines was lowest in segregated settlements (63.7 %), and it gradually increased with growing spatial integration – among those living diffused it was 77.7%. It’s possible to find the opposite tendency with the share of those persons with prescribed medicines who acquired only

Graph 7.5 Structure of the Roma population age 6+ years by reason for not acquiring prescribed medicine and by type of settlement (in %) 0%

10%

Diffused

9.2

Separated

8.3

Segregated

6.2

All

7.6

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

67.9

7.3

61.9 48.0

12.5 10.2

57.6

90%

100%

15.6 17.3

35.6 10.4

I thought that I didn’t need the medicine

I couldn’t afford the medicine

I had the medicine at home

Didn‘t know, didn’t reply

25.1

Question: Why didn’t you acquire all of the prescribed medicine?

Note: Data about persons age 6 years and older who upon seeing a doctor received a prescription for medicine and who either didn’t acquire it or acquired only some of it.

87

R E P O R T O N T H E L I V I N G CO N D I T I O N S O F R O MA H O U S E H O L D S I N S LO VA K I A 2010

Graph 7.6 Structure of the subsets of the Roma population by total sum associated with the last seeing a doctor – comparison with the geographically close general population (in %) 0% Diffused Separated Segregated Roma population General population

10%

20%

30%

21.1

11.3

22.7 17.4

20.3

Didn’t pay anything

60%

17.8

20.1 13.9 EUR 1-3

70%

80%

90%

100%

41.0

8.5 10.8

32.8

10.5

24.8

14.9 8.1

50%

18.1

16.2

16.9

17.5

40%

30.3

10.0

8.0

34.7 52.5

EUR 4-6

EUR 7-9

EUR 10 and more

Question: How much did your last visit to the doctor cost you?

Note: Health status was determined for all members of selected households age 6 years and older.

some of them: the lowest share was shown to be in the diffused population (16.4%) and with declining integration on the basis of settlement type this increased (in segregated settlements it reached 22.8%).10 The situation in the population living in the nearby proximity was much more favourable. Here 93.1% of persons always purchased all of the prescribed medicine and 3.2% only some.

In the part of the Roma population age 6+ years which in 2010 saw a doctor, 22.8% of individuals did not acquire the prescribed medicines (they acquired only some or none of them). In segregated settlements this involved one-quarter of those surveyed. The most common reason for such an approach was a lack of money. The response “I could not afford to give so much money on medicine” was chosen by more than half of those (57%), who had medicine prescribed and who did not acquire all of them (or none of them). At first glance the highest share of those persons occurred surprisingly in the diffused set, where this was 10 percentage points higher than the average for the entire set of the relevant Roma population. As Graph 7.5 shows, the least frequent prevalence of financial deficiency as the reason for not acquiring all prescribed medicines was found among residents of segregated settlements. It’s possible to explain this fact by the unusually high share of those who didn’t know or didn’t want to respond to the given question (35.6%); in comparison with the other two types of settlements, this reluctance or ignorance was two-times higher. Other reasons played

88

a much smaller role and did so in all three monitored groups of Roma population age 6 years or older.11 The weak interest in professional health care reflects the fact that one-fifth of the Roma population12 did not respond to the question regarding when they last saw a doctor. One to two weeks before carrying out the study 19.6% of the set saw a doctor, and 18.9% saw a doctor three to four weeks prior to the study. The share of those who had not seen a doctor for a year and more was 16%.

Somewhat surprisingly, the share of persons who were last at a doctor one year ago or more had the highest representation in the subset living diffused (20.1%). This number was lower in the separated (15.2%) and segregated settlements (13.2%). In segregated settlements the last visit to a doctor was most often made 34 weeks ago (20.2%). If we were to add to this number the share of people who saw a doctor a week or two before, then we arrive at a share of approximately 40% of people whose last visit to the doctor took place during the last month before the study. This share was moderately higher than in the diffused (36.9%) and separated groups (38.7%). In the geographically close general population the share of individuals who had not been to a doctor for a year or more was 13.6%. A recent visit in the last month was given by 43.5% of people. The most common reason given for last seeing a doctor in both the Roma population (30.8%) as well as in the geographically close general population (29.5%) was for treatment of an illness.

10 In responses to this question among the Roma population from segregated settlements a moderately high share was found of those who didn’t know or didn’t want to offer any response (11.5%). This fact must be considered during interpretations of the obtained data. The share of those persons in the entire set of Roma population was 6.7%; in separated settlements and in diffused settlements the figures were below this average value.

11 We did not research the prevalence of individual reasons in the geographically close general population because of the low absolute number of persons to whom this related.

12 We are still speaking about the population age 6 years and older.

R E P O R T O N T H E L I V I N G CO N D I T I O N S O F R O MA H O U S E H O L D S I N S LO VA K I A 2010

Table 7.6 Comparison of average sums paid for the last visit to a doctor in the Roma population age 6+ by type of settlement (in EUR) Average sum paid Standard (in EUR) deviation Segregated Separated Diffused

9.9 11.1 12.5

Standard error 8.9 19.9 13.4

Confidence interval (95%) Lower limit Upper limit 0.4 9.1 0.9 9.4 0.6 11.4

10.6 12.8 13.6

Question: How much did your last visit to the doctor cost you?

Note: Health status was determined for all members of selected households age 6 years and older. Testing criterion (in the ANOVA procedure) F = 4.3 with a level of significance of α = 0.05.

Expenditures associated with seeing a doctor, whether for payments for transport (in the case of long distance) or payments for medicine and the like, can represent a burden for households. Therefore one part of the study was a question regarding the total sum which respondents paid out in association with the last visit to a doctor. The expenditures for medicine, transport and other relevant payments were included into the overall sum.13 On one hand 20.3% of persons from the Roma population did not pay anything; on the other hand, onefifth of them paid from EUR 4 to EUR 6, and one-third (34.7%) reported that their expenditures were EUR 10 or more. Lower expenditures most often were related to people from segregated settlements: 17.4% of them paid EUR 1 to EUR 3 and one-fifth paid expenditures from EUR 4 to EUR 6. A sum from EUR 10 and higher was paid in particular by Roma living diffused – the share for this group was significantly higher than among respondents from separated and segregated settlements. Patients from the geographically close general population paid such a sum even more often: approximately half of them paid EUR 10 or more the last time they saw a doctor.

The amount of the average sum paid14 changed in the Roma population according to spatial integration. The highest was among Roma from diffused settlements (EUR 12.50) and this decreased with less integrated settlements: patients from separated settlements paid on average EUR 11.10 and from segregated settlements EUR 9.89. The average expenditures of persons from the geographically close general population were a great deal higher than with the Roma; with the last visit to a doctor they represented EUR 18.39. A comparison of the significance of differences between the three monitored groups of the Roma population was done using the ANOVA procedure,15 in which the testing criterion F had a value of 4.3 for a level of significance of 0.05. Therefore, it is possible to state that statis-

tically significant differences exist between the types of settlements in the amount paid to a doctor. According to the results of a Bonferroni test, statistically significant differences occurred between the subsets of persons from segregated and diffused settlements. Respondents from segregated settlements paid for their last visit to a doctor statistically significantly less then respondents living diffused.

As we mentioned, three types of payments were included in the total sum – payment for transport, medicine and for other items. One-quarter of Roma paid nothing for transport on their last visit to a doctor.1 Those who did pay for transport to the doctor most often paid EUR 1. The average sum which individuals from the set of the Roma population paid on their last visit to a doctor was EUR 3.17 Roma living diffused paid the most – a trip to the doctor cost them on average EUR 4. In segregated settlements the average expenditures for transport were EUR 3, and in separated settlements this sum was still a bit lower (EUR 2.70). During their last visit to the doctor 32% of Roma (those who answered the question) paid nothing for medicine. Among Roma who did pay for medicine, the average sum was EUR 9. The same as with transport, respondents living diffused also had the highest expenditures for medicine – they paid EUR 9.50 on average. In the subset of Roma from separated settlements average expenditures for medicines on the last visit to a doctor was EUR 9. Roma from segregated settlements paid the least – EUR 8 on average.

7.3. Evaluation of health status The majority of Roma evaluated their own health positively (Graph 7.7): 22.3% reported it as “very good” and 46.3% as “rather good”; overall this involved 68.6% of the Roma population age 6 and older. A negative eval-

13 A total of 85% of authorised respondents replied to this question (that is, those who answered the question about when they last saw a doctor).

14 The average sum was calculated only from data from respondents who had some expenditures. Therefore, those who paid nothing were not taken into consideration. If these persons had been included, the average would be significantly lower.

15 Levene’s test of variance homogeneity was not statistically significant.

16 This involves the share of those who answered the question regarding expenditures for transport.

17 Average expenditures for transport were calculated only for those respondents who answered the given question and stated some sum (higher than zero).

89

R E P O R T O N T H E L I V I N G CO N D I T I O N S O F R O MA H O U S E H O L D S I N S LO VA K I A 2010

Graph 7.7 Subjective evaluation of health in the Roma population age 6+ years by type of settlement (in %) 0%

10%

Segregated

21.4

Separated

22.4

Diffused

23.1

Roma population

22.3 Very good

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

50.2 44.3 44.0 46.3 Rather good

Average

14.2 14.7 15.8 14.9 Rather bad

90%

100%

6.3 3.4 8.7 9.7 7.9

3.3 3.9 3.5

Very bad

Question: How would you evaluate your health or health status overall?

Note: Health status was determined for all members of selected households age 6 years and older. Additional numbers up to 100% represent the share of those who did not answer the question.

uation of health (replies “very bad” and “rather bad”) was recorded in 11.4% of the surveyed set. What’s interesting is that positive evaluations occurred most often among Roma from segregated settlements: their own health was reported as “very good” by 21.4% and as “rather good” by 50.3% of them.18 The differences in evaluations between Roma men and women were not significant. The representation of persons in the Roma population who had chronic medical difficulties increased with growing dissatisfaction with their own health status. Among Roma who considered their own health as average, 38.2% suffered from long-term medical problems, and in the group of persons evaluating their health as “rather bad” this was 90%. Chronic difficulties affected nearly all persons (97%) in the group of Roma with very bad health status.

With comparisons of the set of geographically close and the Roma population, but reduced to the age interval of 15-64 years,19 certain differences appear. Within the Roma population age 15-64 years a great deal fewer persons assessed their health as “very good”, and conversely – more often leaned toward the assessment “rather bad” and “very bad”. While 23.3% of the relevant Roma population considered their own health as very good, among the geographically close general population this was 29.5% (and was so despite the higher average age); on the other hand 12.8% of the Roma population age 15-64 considered their health status as rather or as very bad, and in the general population this was only 8.3% (Graph 7.8).

90

A direct comparison with the year 2005 is not possible for this question about health, because in 2010 a different rating scale was used – it was adapted to the question and the variant used in the EU SILC statistical survey.20 If we wanted to get an idea about how the selfevaluation of the health status in the Roma population ends up in the context of the entire population, we can compare data obtained from the study, for example, with data from EU SILC 2009 or EHIS 2009 (see Box 7.1).21

Conclusions On the basis of the subjective opinions of respondents (the occurrence of chronic illnesses and its implication were ascertained on the basis of self-evaluation of respondents; that is, no expert assessment was involved) the occurrence of chronic illnesses in the Roma population age 6+ years was higher in 2010 than in 2005, and was so on the level of the entire set of surveyed persons, as well as on the level of the individual groups defined according to spatial integration of the households in which they lived. The gap between the Roma and the geographically close general population, however, remained more or less unchanged – the occurrence of chronic illnesses was higher for the general population.

But with comparisons through individual generations differences did appear: in the youngest generation chronic illnesses were approximately the same for the Roma and the general population, but for the middle gen-

18 Again, this probably expresses the lower ability of citizens from segregated settlements to assess their own genuine health status, as well as the overall smaller measure of attention devoted to questions of health, as has already been stated in the first part of this chapter. Not only does the higher discovered occurrence of chronic illnesses in this part of the Roma population speak for such a supposition, but it was also subsequently confirmed by the qualitative research activities which followed the research questionnaire in the scope of the project being carried out.

19 A narrowing of the initial population should in the end minimise the influence of the different age structure for evaluation of health status.

20 In 2005 only four degrees of evaluation were used (very good, good, bad and very bad), the share of bad and very bad evaluations of health was 15.9%.

21 Before a direct comparison, however, it is necessary to harmonise the data from all surveys, because in the EU SILC only persons age 16 years and older were asked to evaluate their own health, and in the case of EHIS 2009 this was 15+ years and in the scope of the findings of the living conditions of Roma households it was 6+ years.

R E P O R T O N T H E L I V I N G CO N D I T I O N S O F R O MA H O U S E H O L D S I N S LO VA K I A 2010

Graph 7.8 Evaluation of health in the set of Roma and geographically close general population age 15-64 years (in %) 0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

23.3

Very good

29.5 45.9 45.7

Rather good 18.0 16.5

Average 9.0

Rather bad 6.5 3.8

Very bad 1.8

Roma population Geographically close general population

Question: How would you evaluate your health or health status overall?

Note: The health status was determined for all members age 6 years and older from selected households; the graph presents an evaluation for the population age 15-64 years. Respondents who did not reply to the question or who did not know how to reply were not included in the calculation.

eration they were higher in the Roma population and for those older than age 55 years chronic illnesses were significantly higher among the Roma. Such a result signifies the faster growth and earlier occurrence of chronic and long-term illnesses in the Roma population. This is also similar for a comparison of the three Roma settlement types – in the oldest generation chronic illnesses occur most often among those living segregated and separated. The poor living conditions in segregated settlements, probably also supported by a less consistent approach to personal health and worse access to health care, is expressed at a higher age in the significantly higher occurrence of chronic illness of their residents.22 The most common chronic illness of the Roma population age 6 years and more were cardiovascular disorders, which achieved a prevalence of nearly 30%. Some distance behind them were respiratory disorders and allergies with 14.3%, disorders of the locomotive organs with 12.5% and disorders of the nerves and sense organs with 11.8%. The occurrence of some long-term illnesses is differentiated in men and women. The most significant difference was shown with cardiovascular disorders, where the share of women was higher by more than 6 percentage points, and with disorders of the locomotive organs, which related more to men than women (the difference represented again nearly 6 percentage points).

Common illnesses or health problems which are not of a chronic character occurred more often than chronic problems in the Roma population: they related to more than half of the surveyed set (53%), similarly as in the set of the geographically close general population (52%).

These most commonly occurred among individuals living in segregated settlements (55%), least among those

living in diffused households (49%). Half of the Roma population (51%) reported that they had to interrupt their daily activities as a consequence of common health problems – they had to stop going to work, school or had to stop performing other common daily activities.

Approximately only half of the Roma population saw a doctor with each medical problem. The most common reason in the Roma population for not seeing a doctor was the conviction that the given medical problem did not require one. Such an opinion was found in one-third of those who saw a doctor only occasionally or never (33%). Approximately one-fifth (22%) opted to wait for the spontaneous improvement of health status. The third most common reason was insufficient finances, which pertained to 18%. The unfavourable financial situation as a barrier to seeing a doctor upon the occurrence of a medical problem is found most often in separated settlements (20%), and it played the smaller role among Roma living diffused (14%).

In the case of seeing a doctor, a great majority (85%) were prescribed medicines which had to be bought at a pharmacy. Among those who saw a doctor in 2010 were 23% who didn’t acquire the prescribed medicines at all or who acquired only some of them. This related to one-quarter of those surveyed in segregated settlements. The most common reason for such an approach was a lack of money. The reply “I couldn’t afford so much money for medicine” was selected by more than half (57%) of those who were prescribed medicine but didn’t acquire them (all or none).

Expenditures associated with seeing a doctor thus represented a burden for a household, either as payment for transport in the case of having to travel a large dis-

22 Available studies also point to the significantly higher and later mortality of the Roma population and lower life expectancy (Vaňo, 2000; UNDP, 2002).

91

R E P O R T O N T H E L I V I N G CO N D I T I O N S O F R O MA H O U S E H O L D S I N S LO VA K I A 2010

tance or payments for medicines and the like. From the surveyed Roma population 20% reported that they paid nothing for medicines. On the other hand, one-fifth paid from EUR 4 to EUR 6 and one-third reported that their expenditures were around EUR 10 or more. Lower expenditures most often occurred with people from segregated settlements. A sum of EUR 10 or more was paid in particular by Roma living in households which are diffused in majority environments – the share of those persons here was significantly higher than among persons from separated and segregated settlements.

The majority of the Roma population assessed its own health positively: 22% reported it as “very good” and 46% as “rather good”. A negative assessment of health (the responses “very bad” and “rather bad”) was recorded in 11% of the whole set. With growing dissatisfaction with their own health status the repre-

sentation of persons in the Roma population who had chronic medical difficulties increased. Among Roma who considered their own health as average, 38% suffered from long-term medical problems, and in the group of persons evaluating their health as “rather bad” this was 90%. Upon comparison of the set of geographically close general population and the Roma population age 15-64 years, certain differences appeared.

Within the Roma population age 15-64 years respondents were more often inclined to evaluate their health as “rather bad” and “very bad”. While 23% of Roma considered their own health as very good, among the geographically close general population this was 30% and was so despite the higher average age; on the other hand 13% of the Roma population considered their health status as rather or as very bad, and in the general population this was only 8%.

BOX 7.1: SELECTED DATA ABOUT THE HEALTH STATUS OF RESIDENTS OF SLOVAKIA According to published data from the EHIS 2009 – European Health Interview Survey the total share of persons with long-lasting or chronic illnesses made up 57.2% of the population age 15 years and older (EHIS, 2009: 9). More chronic illnesses appeared on average in women, which is probably associated with the different age structure of women and men in Slovakia – the share of women in the higher age groups is significantly greater. This is ultimately confirmed for the individual age categories, which showed a strong trend of growth of chronic illnesses with increasing age.

Long-term or chronic illnesses or long-term health problems Yes No Total 57.2 42.8 52.0 48.0 62.1 37.9

Total Men Women Age groups 15-24 years 25-34 years 35-44 years 45-54 years 55-64 years 65-74 years 75 and more years

32.9 38.0 48.0 62.8 82.0 93.6 95.7

67.1 62.0 52.0 37.2 18.0 6.4 4.3

100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

Source: EHIS, 2009: 9.

Note: It is interesting that according to data from EU SILC 2009, 30% of the population age 16 years and older in Slovakia suffered from a chronic illness (EU SILC, 2010: 61). Probably the different definitions of chronic illness and long-term medical problems in both finding had some influence.

A similar association with age is expressed also with the subjective evaluation of one’s own health: with growing age, the share of positive evaluations decreases and the share of negative evaluation increases. While on average 26.4% of the population of Slovakia age 15 years and older evaluated its own health as good, in the age group of 45-54 years this was only 12.3% and among those older than 74 years only a negligible percent. On the other hand, an average of 12.2% of residents age 15+ years evaluated their overall health in 2009 as rather bad or very bad, and in the case of the youngest this was not quite 2% and for the oldest nearly half.

92

R E P O R T O N T H E L I V I N G CO N D I T I O N S O F R O MA H O U S E H O L D S I N S LO VA K I A 2010

Subjective health assessment Very good Rather good Average Rather bad Very bad Total 26.4 37.8 23.6 9.0 3.2 29.5 38.7 22.0 7.4 2.4 23.5 36.9 25.1 10.5 4.0

Total Men Women Age groups 15-24 years 25-34 years 35-44 years 45-54 years 55-64 years 65-74 years 75 and more years

57.5 42.7 26.1 12.3 6.2 1.9 1.7

33.1 45.7 50.8 46.0 31.3 16.9 9.3

7.8 9.4 19.0 30.1 44.1 41.5 39.0

1.4 1.2 3.4 9.4 13.5 31.2 31.3

0.2 1.0 0.7 2.2 4.8 8.6 18.6

100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

Source: EHIS, 2009: 9.

In regard to the measure of limitation in common activities due to a medical problem, a total of 38.1% of the overall population of Slovakia felt limited – of this 31.1% partially and not quite 7% very much so. A higher measure of limitations in normal daily activities was reported by women, and this also showed rapid growth in relation to age. In the youngest age groups the share of people very limited due to a medical problem was only 3% and less and partially limited was 15% and less, so that together less than 20%; in the age 45 – 54 years, however, this was now 40% and for the 65-74 years group nearly 80%.

Limitations in common daily activities due to a medical problem Very Limited, Not limited Total limited but not very at all Total Men Women Age groups 15-24 years 25-34 years 35-44 years 45-54 years 55-64 years 65-74 years 75 and more years

6.7 5.8 7.6

31.4 27.8 34.9

61.8 66.4 57.6

100.0 100.0 100.0

2.4 2.9 3.6 6.4 8.9 17.7 21.4

13.3 15.5 22.6 36.1 49.9 59.1 68.3

84.3 81.6 73.8 57.6 41.1 23.1 10.3

100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

Source: EHIS, 2009: 11.

Note: According to data from EU SILC 2009, 11% of the population older than age 16 years had to significantly limit their activities due to a medical problem, and another 23.2 % had to proceed with partial limitations (Statistical Office 2010: 60).

93

08

Education and expenditures on education

With an analysis of the educational structure it is necessary to distinguish three categories which are differentiated by their relation to the educational system. First are children who are of preschool age and still only waiting for the start of their compulsory school attendance. A part of them could participate in a preschool education at a nursery school.

Second is the group of pupils and students who attend some type of school within the educational system. Finally, it is necessary to distinguish persons outside the school system which also includes those who have left the educational system early, that is, before reaching the age when compulsory school attendance ends. This chapter is focused especially on the second and third groups. Attention will first be devoted to persons outside the school system and the structure of their achieved education. Subsequently, we’ll devote ourselves to pupils and students, where we will take note of the conditions under which education runs and the expenditures associated with it.

8.1. Educational structure of persons who are no longer in the school system In the set of Roma population were 2,048 persons who said that at present they are not attending any school and who are not of preschool age. In this group, however, were 42 children of age 6 years (which is the start of compulsory school age) in whom it is justifiable to assume that they had not yet begun to attend primary school because entry had been “postponed”, which is in no way unusual. Because compulsory school attendance exists in the Slovak Republic, we therefore assume that this involves children who had not yet begun the process of

compulsory school attendance. To the question about the highest level of education achieved, only those who previously reported that they had once attended some sort of school responded.1 In the final result 1,893 relevant responses were obtained, which enabled an analysis of the educational structure of that part of the Roma population found outside of the educational system. We will label the group of respondents who provided answers as “persons found outside the school system”. Their share represented 52% of the entire set of Roma (for comparison, in 2005 the share was 56% of the sample Roma population). They most often occurred among Roma living diffused (57%); in separated settlements their representation was a bit smaller (54%). Among Roma from segregated settlements, persons who were already outside the school system occurred least often (48%).

Important initial information can be obtained by an analysis of the internal structure of this group. In terms of age, persons in the full productive age of 30-49 years were most commonly represented in the monitored set of Roma. The second most frequent category was formed by young people age 15 – 29 years; the age category 50 years and older with a finished education represented approximately one-fifth of those surveyed. The low occurrence of children younger than 15 years who are outside of the educational system is not surprising.2 The age structure of persons found outside the education system was in the individual types of settlement more or less alike. The distribution of persons into age groups varied by degree of spatial integration or by exclusion only moderately, perhaps with the exception of the fact that in those living diffused there was a moderately higher representation of older people.

Table 8.1 Structure of the Roma population which is outside of the school system by age and type of settlement (in %) Segregated up to 15 years 15-29 years 30-49 years 50 years and more Individuals total

Separated 0.1 37.2 43.0 19.7 100.0

Diffused 0.0 37.6 43.3 19.1 100.0

Total 0.0 34.7 43.4 21.9 100.0

0.1 36.5 43.1 20.3 100.0

Note: The question about finished education related to all persons in the set older than age 6 years. The table does not include persons who did not respond to the question about highest achieved education.

1 No question about their achieved level of education and related questions were asked of respondents who responded that they had never attended school (n = 37). They proceeded to the reasons why they never went to school; most often this was illness and health disability (21 times), then - I had to work and help out at home (6 times); other reasons occurred only individually (my parent didn’t let me; there was no money for clothes and shoes; that’s how it was back then; or other reasons).

2 On the other hand, the minimal values which are presented in the table are influenced by the fact that respondents who did not answer the question on school attendance (a total of 120) were excluded from the analysis; and among them, approximately 40% were children younger than age 15 years.

95

R E P O R T O N T H E L I V I N G CO N D I T I O N S O F R O MA H O U S E H O L D S I N S LO VA K I A 2010

Table 8.2 Structure of the Roma population which is outside the school system by degree of highest achieved education, sex and age (in %) Primary school not finished

Primary school finished (ISCED 1 and 2)

Secondary school finished (ISCED 3)*

Higher than secondary school (ISCED 4+)**

Special school***

Total

Sex Women Men

19.3 17.5

63.3 56.2

12.5 21.4

0.2 0.3

4.7 4.6

100.0 100.0

16-19 years (n = 155) 20-26 years (n = 388) 27-35 years (n = 411) 36-64 years (n = 854) 65+ years (n = 76) 36+ years (n = 930) 16-64 years (n = 1 808) 16-55 years 6 (n = 1 670) Individuals total

9.0 12.4 18.5 20.0 47.4 22.3 17.1 16.0 18.4

77.5 63.6 56.9 57.6 42.1 56.3 60.5 61.0 59.7

7.7 18.0 18.1 18.4 10.5 17.7 17.3 17.6 17.0

— 0.3 0.2 0.4 — 0.3 0.3 0.2 0.3

5.8 5.7 5.3 3.6 — 3.3 4.9 5.1 4.7

100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

Age

Question: What is your highest achieved level of education?

Note: Only those respondents outside the school system who ever attended school responded to the question; among them were only 4 of age 15 years; therefore we did not include this category into the table. Respondents who did not reply to the question (n = 5% of the relevant set) are not included in the calculations.

Annotation regarding the categories of education: *SOŠ and SŠ; **All degrees of university study; ***Persons who attended a special primary or secondary school. Primary school not finished = ending of school attendance in a lower grade than was the standard length for primary school; primary school finished = completion of primary school in standard final year, including respondents with unfinished secondary school (their highest completed education was primary school).

Among Roma who at the time of the study did not attend any school in the educational system, a low education was predominate (Table 8.2). Nearly one-fifth of Roma (18.4%) ended their education without finishing standard primary school, while nearly three-fifths had finished standard primary school (59.7%). A total of 17% of the relevant Roma population successfully continued with further study at the secondary level. The largest category was made up of individuals with finished vocational school 3 (15.2%), while only a small share (1.8%) finished secondary school with a schoolleaving certificate,4 similarly as holders of a university education (0.3%). The remaining nearly 5% of the surveyed subset attended some type of special school in their preparation for a profession. The listed percentage includes persons in special schools at the primary and secondary levels.5

96

From the viewpoint of degree of achieved education, men and women showed certain differences. Among Roma women were significantly more persons who did not continue with study at a secondary school – that is, with unfinished primary school or a primary school education. Differences were then expressed in the representation of a higher degree of education: the difference in the share of persons with a finished secondary school education was more than 9 percentage points higher for men than for women. Therefore, on the basis of results from 2010 it’s possible to state what was also in the report on mapping of the situation in 2005: that is, the overall the educational structure of surveyed Roma women can be evaluated as moderately lagging behind the educational structure of men (UNDP, 2006: 62).

The level of achieved education changed with age in the Roma population. We find the least favourable situ-

3 The name of the school “SOU” (secondary vocational training school) actually no longer exists. Therefore in this study we refer to this type of study as “SOŠ” (secondary vocational school) operating according to the state educational programme ISCED 3C; i.e. a three- or four-year study of a vocation without a school-leaving certificate.

4 A total of 8.9% of respondents outside the school system reported an unfinished secondary school education; with the majority of them this involved finished vocational training school (7.5%); but those with finished secondary school were placed in the category of finished primary school (ISCED 2).

5 The educational structure of the surveyed Roma population in comparison with year 2005 shows a certain differentiation, in that the largest changes are related to the growth in the share of persons with a finished primary education and a decline in persons with an unfinished education between years 2005 and 2010. A direct comparison is limited, however, by the higher share of respondents who did not respond to the question in 2010 on achieved level of education. And as we mentioned, 40% of those cases related to children under the age of 15 years, in whom it is possible to assume that if they really are outside of the school system, after their potential inclusion into the relevant educational category “with finished education” or “without an education” the changes for the presented period would not be significant.

6 For illustration: for the equally defined geographically close general population age 16-55 years (n = 476) the shares for individual categories of education were as follows: unfinished primary school 1.9%; finished primary school (ISCED 2) 7.1%; finished secondary school (ISCED 3) 74.8%; higher than secondary (ISCED 5+) 15.8%; special school 0.4%.

R E P O R T O N T H E L I V I N G CO N D I T I O N S O F R O MA H O U S E H O L D S I N S LO VA K I A 2010

Table 8.3 Structure of the Roma population which is outside the school system by degree of achieved education and type of settlement (in %) Segregated primary school not finished primary school finished (ISCED 1 and 2) secondary school finished (ISCED 3)* Higher (ISCED 4+)** Special school*** Individuals total

Separated 23.3 59.5 14.2 0.2 2.8 100.0

Diffused 17.3 58.0 16.5 0.2 8.0 100.0

Total 14.7 61.8 20.2 0.5 2.9 100.0

18.4 59.7 17.0 0.3 4.7 100.0

Question: What is your highest achieved level of education?

Note: Only those respondents outside the school system who ever attended school responded to the question. Respondents who did not reply to the question (about 5% of the relevant set) are not included in the calculations.

Annotation regarding the categories of education: *SOŠ and SŠ; **All degrees of university study; ***Persons who attended a special primary or secondary school. Primary school not finished = ending of school attendance in a lower grade than was the standard length for primary school; primary school finished = completion of primary school in standard final year, including respondents with unfinished secondary school (their highest completed education was primary school).

ation in the oldest generation age 65+ years, in which up to 47.4% did not have even a primary school education completed (in the case of a group defined by the age 36 years and more this was 22.3%). With the lowering of age the share of those with unfinished primary school education rapidly dropped – in the youngest age category, in comparison with the oldest generation, it was lower by 39 (or with the group age 36+ years by 13) percentage points.7 With the completion of primary school education it is possible to observe smaller differences: the most positive situation was in the youngest generation; with older groups the picture changes – fewer had finished primary school, although with every age interval it had the highest share. Differences in the representation of finished secondary school were less significant; the share moved on a level of 18% in all the defined groups of the middle generation, though the very low result (only 7.7%) for the youngest group with a finished education in the 16 – 19 years age group was surprising. The data also shows that Roma in the younger and younger middle age group in particular had experience with attending special schools (above 5%), while in older age groups such an experience was represented significantly less often (among those older than 36 years below 4%).

The distribution of the level of achieved education differs by the monitored types of settlement in some respects (Table 8.3). The highest share of persons with an unfinished primary education was found in the population living segregated – more than one-fifth (23.3%) of them left the educational system with unfinished primary school. This share was significantly higher than in the other two types of settlement, and with increasing spatial integration the share of persons with an unfinished primary school fell – up to 14.7% for those living diffused.

The difference in the representation of persons with an

unfinished primary education among the diffused and the segregated population (that is, the population with the highest and the lowest measure of spatial integration) represented in the year 2010 more than 8 percentage points. The population living diffused was better in this also in another regard – Roma women and men

Graph 8.1 Structure of the Roma population which is outside the school system and has only unfinished primary school, by year in which they left primary school (in %) 2.4

7.1 11.2

17.4

31.0 31.0

1-4 year 5th year 6th year

7th year 8th year 9th year

Question: In which class did you finish primary school?

Note: Only for respondents who gave “primary unfinished” as their highest achieved education (n = 347).

Respondents who did not answer the question (4% of the relevant subset) were not included in the calculations.

7 Nearly equal data on the share of Roma pupils who are finishing their compulsory schooling at a level lower than the last year of primary school (in the 1970s and 1980s this was a stable 20%) is presented by J. Tomatová in her study (Tomatová, 2001; according to Bajo – Vašek, 1994).

97

R E P O R T O N T H E L I V I N G CO N D I T I O N S O F R O MA H O U S E H O L D S I N S LO VA K I A 2010

Table 8.4 Structure of the Roma population with a finished primary education by type of settlement and reasons for not continuing studies at secondary school (in %) Segregated No interest in school or learning Lack of money for fees, clothing, shoes Help at home, work Bad marks and results Wedding Birth of a child Illness, health disability Parents didn’t allow me Geographically inaccessible schools Other Individuals total

Separated 33.6 18.1 14.3 12.1 13.2 2.3 1.1 3.4 1.5 0.4 100.0

Diffused 22.7 24.1 14.3 16.1 15.4 1.7 1.7 1.0 2.8 — 100.0

Total 30.9 29.2 13.4 13.1 3.7 4.0 3.0 1.3 0.7 0.7 100.0

29.0 24.0 14.0 13.8 10.6 2.7 2.0 1.9 1.6 0.4 100.0

Question: Why didn’t you continue studies at a secondary vocational school or secondary school?

Note: Only for respondents who declared a finished primary school education and didn’t try any form of secondary school education (n = 849). Respondents who did not answer the question were not included in the calculations (8% of the relevant subset).

from segregated and separated settlements continued in education to the next degree less often than in the case of those living diffused. The highest share of finished secondary education was among Roma living diffused, and the lowest in segregated settlements (20% versus 14%).

The difference was 6 percentage points. Education in special schools had the highest representation in Roma from separated settlements – their share was nearly three-times higher than in segregated settlements and in the population of Roma living diffused (8% versus 3%). This involved particularly Roma who finished their education at special primary schools.

As is mentioned above (Table 8.2), in the Roma population which was already outside the education system, respondents with a primary education together totalled 78.1%. From this 18.4% left primary school prematurely, that is, without proper completion, and they departed from primary schools in different years. A total of 7.1% of Roma ended the first degree of primary school with an unfinished primary education,8 and 17.4% of them ended their education in the fifth class.

They left primary school most often in the sixth and seventh classes (31%). The data indicates that the amount of knowledge obtained at primary school remains for a large part of the Roma with an unfinished primary school education rather limited – they did not acquire the awareness, skills and abilities development in the higher years of primary school.

In relation to Roma with declared finished primary education who did not even try any form of secondary school education, their share made up 50.8% of the sub-

98

set of those who were already outside the school system.9 Among the reasons why they didn’t continue in their studies at secondary school were objective barriers like subjective (de)motivation.

As Table 8.4 presents, the most common reason for not continuing in studies at a secondary school which respondents with finished primary school reported was a lack of interest in school, or a dislike of learning at the time of departure from primary school; this reason was recorded for 29% of this group. The second most commonly given reason was insufficient money for clothing, shoes or fees (24%). The fact that the absence of a higher level of education was not only the result of a personal decision/characteristic is also indicated by the fact that 14% of Roma listed as their reason the “necessity to work or help at home”. Another nearly 14% of Roma did not continue on to secondary school because of poor marks in school. The lack of interest in school/dislike of learning was most frequent in segregated settlements (33.6%).

On the other hand the share of Roma who did not continue on to secondary education due to lack of interest was lower in separated settlements (22.7%). Insufficient money as a reason for not increasing education related in particular to the population living in diffused settlements; in segregated and separated settlements financial difficulties were not as common (reported) a reason for low education. As the table show, family behaviour of the Roma also played a certain role in the sense of activities leading to the founding of one’s own family. A wedding was listed as the reason for not continuing with studies at a secondary school in particular by

8 This means that they left school in the fourth class or earlier. By age it appears that this was predominately respondents older than 50 years (younger age years ended their primary school education in the fifth class at the earliest).

9 The remainder to 59.7% of the overall group with the highest achieved degree of education at the level of finished primary school represented respondents who tried secondary school, but did not complete it; such were 8.9% of the entire Roma population which were already outside the school system.

R E P O R T O N T H E L I V I N G CO N D I T I O N S O F R O MA H O U S E H O L D S I N S LO VA K I A 2010

Roma from segregated and separated settlements. In the set of Roma from diffused settlements weddings played a much less important role.

The mentioned reasons for not continuing in studies at secondary school require deeper attention, because here somewhere may be hidden potential places for a successful intervention in the interest of increasing the education level of the Roma population, about which a lot is spoken as a prerequisite for success on the labour market.

The high share of responses which saw the reason for a finished low achieved education in their own attitude toward learning at the time and in the bad results at primary school (a total of 42.8% of Roma women and men with a primary education) could indicate a failure of the system of primary education from the point of view of its ability to inspire Roma children for education, as well as in providing support and help to those children in the interest of better marks at school. The results of the study implied that for the group which gave a dislike of learning or bad marks as the reason for not continuing in their studies at secondary school in particular, as with the group with unfinished primary school, the share with bad experiences with school was the highest (Graph 8.2).

While in these three groups more than 40% reported bad experiences with school, the overall average for the Roma population outside the school system moved right around the 20% level; and on the other hand those who finished vocational school (less than 10%) had the least bad experiences with school, and Roma women and men with school-leaving certificates and with higher education had only good memories of school. Thus, bad experiences with school to a significant measure are tied in with bad final results in the field of education – whether in the form of unfinished primary school, bad marks or poor relations to learning, and vice versa.10 Due to the lack of space, the study did not further monitor the form of these bad experiences at school; however, qualitative research from segregated and separated settlements of Roma communities carried out in the previous period can say a lot about this.11 Such differences in experiences with school by education signal two things: negative experiences could be one of the reasons for not finishing primary school in the standard regime; they could also be dissuasive when deciding about continuation in studies at some type of secondary school. Conversely, positive experi-

Graph 8.2 Experience of different educational groups of the Roma population which are outside the school system with school – comparison with experience of geographically close general population (in %) 0 All with finished secondary school and more All with finished secondary vocational school All with unfinished secondary school All with finished primary school All with unfinished primary school Reason for not continuing to secondary school – didn’t want to study Reason for not continuing to secondary school – poor marks All outside the school system General population outside the school system

20

40

60

59.5 31.1

100

40.5

0.0 8.10 0.0

60.8

28.7

55.6

17.4

12.9

62.1

11.0

4.4

2.8

16.4

46.3

7.6

25.2

4.1

17.5

48.8

30.6

13.0

53.0

29.5

13.1

19.7

57.4

17.0 48.5

48.9 Very good

80

rather good

rather bad

5.9 0.5 2.1

very bad

Question: What was your experience with school like (approach of teachers, classmates, etc.)?

Note: Only respondents outside the school system.

10 The bivariate correlation between achieved education and personal experience with school confirmed the medium strength of dependence (Spearman’s rank correlation coefficient was 0.287 for the level of significance α=0.01) in the overall expression. A more detailed statistical analysis (adjusted residual) showed, however, that respondents with finished primary school reported rather bad and even more often very bad experiences with school significantly more often statistically, and at the same time rarely evaluated their experience as rather good or very good. On the other hand, respondents with a completed secondary school education (with or without a school-leaving certificate) significantly more often statistically evaluated their experience with school as very good, and at the same time significantly more rarely considered them as rather bad or very bad.

99

R E P O R T O N T H E L I V I N G CO N D I T I O N S O F R O MA H O U S E H O L D S I N S LO VA K I A 2010

ences during primary school can stimulate Roma children to continue in their study. The question here arises whether our society has done enough (opportunities of the school system, support of informed choice – parents and children, field social work with families and the like) so that the bad experiences of Roma children with school be reduced to a minimum and support around their learning be strengthened; so that they do not have as a consequence earlier departure from the educational system, resignation in regard to an interest in learning and bad school results.

The analysis also showed that the group of Roma individuals who as a reason for not continuing with studies at secondary school gave a dislike of learning, attended significantly more than was average a segregated class at primary school. Nearly 15% of them were in the last year at primary school in a class where there were only or almost only Roma children, and an additional 19% in a class, where there were more Roma children than non-Roma children (a total of 34% of segregated); the average for the Roma population outside the school system was 11% and 14% (a total of 25% in segregated classrooms). On the other hand, for those who completed some type of secondary school or obtained an even higher education, the share attending a segregated class in the last year of primary school was only 11%. It seems as if segregation at primary school negatively influences the achieved level of education and an interest in studying.

Let’s stop for a moment also with the other reasons for quitting studies at secondary school. Aside from insufficient finances for educating children other family reasons had a relatively strong representation, such as getting married or the birth of a child, non-consent of parents with studying or the necessity of helping at home (in all up to 29.2% of the Roma population with finished primary school who did not continue on to a secondary school). As Graph 8.3 shows, relatively large differences by sex are evident. While a lack of finances for fees, clothing and shoes was given in equal measure by Roma women and men, for other groups of rea-

100

sons this was different. Lack of interest in school and bad marks were most often given as responses by men; this was also the case with so-called other reasons (health status and access to school and others), while Roma women, again a great deal more often, named family reasons as the reason for quitting school. One-third of the relevant Roma women gave some of the family reasons, and from Roma men this was only one-quarter.

The largest difference was with the reason “I got married”, which was given by 16% of women and only 4% of men. With other family reasons the difference was not so large, although with women the birth of a child and being denied by parents moderately predominated, and in men again the need to help at home. And with spatial exclusion the share of family barriers to studying grew: from those living diffused 19.3% of Roma men and 25.2% of Roma women; for separated this grew to 25.2% of men and 38.4% of women and for segregated this was 28.8% of men and 36.7% of women.

If we wanted to find similar findings in previous studies, it’s possible, for example, to again draw from the already cited study of the Cultural Association of Roma in Slovakia (Data…, 2009). In this study, Roma women and men of the surveyed non-integrated population, also to a large measure gave different family barriers as a significant barrier to unfulfilled life plans and dreams. In the end, family problems such as the need of caring for children and family and the like, became the second most frequent barrier to fulfilling one’s career plans (after lack of finances and before barriers based on ethnic membership). And as the report further states, empirical data confirmed the stronger feeling of restraints and barriers established by parents and the parental family on the path of lifelong dreams on the side of Roma women.12 From the cited study a much higher measure of interference on the part of one’s own family situation into the dreamed of life path with Roma women also follows (four times more than in men). This primarily involves early partnerships and parenthood, which either interrupted the studies of girls or directed their life outside of their own dreams and plans.13

11 See, for example, the study of the Cultural Association of Roma in Slovakia from 2009; some of them are detailed in BOX 8.C and 8.D. As it is stated in the mentioned report: “several of the presented problems associated with attending primary school were of a general character (they mattered to many children from the majority population) and not associated with ethnic membership; many, however, had a discriminatory character. So that many Roma citizens even as children at primary school already met with prejudices, unequal treatment, segregation and the absence of supporting or compensatory measures – from the side of teachers and classmates. The consequences of such experiences in early childhood can vary.

They could discourage Roma children from further study despite the existing assumption, to support them in persisting in a known environment and building in them a fear of leaving their own location and family. They could also label them not only in a period of maturing, but for their entire life, and influence their life chances and quality of life. It is therefore very important to systematically work on removing similar practices from primary education and on raising children in regard to greater tolerance and respecting differences.” (Data…, 2009: 30).

12 This was primarily the disagreement of parents with further study for girls or a lack of finances for ensuring study: “parents prevented – school too far away“. Roma women also spoke about the lack of support for further education on the part of their parents (“they didn’t take me at the school and even my parents didn’t ask me to go, so I stayed home”), as well as bad parental relations, which forced girls to put care of the home ahead of school and (“a lot of children in my family, I come from an eight—member family“). Barriers from the side of the parents’ family, however, took still another form – related to the selection of a partner and the founding of one’s own family: “my parents selected a husband for me; I didn’t want him”, “mama forbade it, there were a lot of suitors”. Barriers from the side of parents were also found in the surveyed men, though to a smaller measure (Data..., 2009: 55).

R E P O R T O N T H E L I V I N G CO N D I T I O N S O F R O MA H O U S E H O L D S I N S LO VA K I A 2010

Graph 8.3 Roma women and men with finished primary education by groups of reasons for not continuing on to secondary school (in %) 0

5

10

15

25

30

35

24.2

Family reasons together

33.3 24.2 23.9

Lack of finances Lack of interest in school and bad marks together Other reasons together

20

40

45

50

Roma men Roma women 46.8 39.4

4.7 3.4

Question: Why didn’t you continue studies at a secondary vocational school or secondary school?

Note: Only for respondents who declared a finished primary school education and didn’t try any form of secondary school education (n = 849).

Respondents who did not answer the question were not included in the calculations (8% of the relevant subset).

From the data obtained it appears as if in the studied environment there was still relatively broad interference of parents into the lives of young people, whether with the choice of education or a life partner and a career.

And such interference is stronger on the side of women, who are often forced to sacrifice their own future career to obligations within their parents’ family. The right of children to an education which would not be limited by their parents and even by the financial situation of the family, as well as the right to participate in decisions about matter which related to the child,14 or in children older than 18 years the right to freedom of choice, in some cases probably are not fully asserted. Again the question arises, what in such cases should the state do, or whether it has done enough for the supporting the assertion of human rights for all citizens of the Slovak Republic (including Roma children)? Where were the school and other institutions when they were unable to override parental objections or financial deficiencies of a family for ensuring access of girls to an education? The fears of Roma parents to release children to study, however, can also be associated with the bad experiences with school found and the need of Roma parents to protect children and to do so by closing them into a known environment (for example, to a school attended by older siblings), although an unfavourable one (see also: Data..., 2009).

A problem associated with this is also how a society ensures sexual or parental upbringing for all; what kind

of accessibility does it have in village schools and whether it is presented on a level and in a way comprehensible for all. The growth of the Roma underage birth rate has become something of a media hit or more a political bon mot for politicians than an object of serious analysis and support for public policy. Public discussion in Slovakia is more devoted to the conflict between sexual versus religious education in schools, and thus far no action plan for sexual or reproductive health has been accepted whose development follows as an obligation from the UN Cairo Conference (1994) or from signing the UN Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women (OSN, 1998). Education regarding planned parenthood and sexual enlightenment is in Slovakia considered as a personal matter of individuals and left to a great measure to a person’s own initiative; the state here avoids its “proper” responsibility.

8.2. Persons in the educational system: attending school, conditions of education The part of the Roma population which at the time of the study had still not completed the process of education made up 43% of the set of Roma and partly included pupils attending school (26.4%) and partly children

13 Roma women examined from a non-integrated community recalled the following among the barriers to fulfilling their life’s dreams: “I fell in love and soon I had a baby”, “I soon got pregnant”, “soon children”, “because of my partner”, “the partner is jealous - I couldn’t go to school”, “a boyfriend”, “I got married early” and the like. Very often the barrier felt was also the family situation with all of the obligations and cares which go with it, and disappointment from a partner’s life: “a lot of children”, “children, along with my own I took care of three siblings”, “children, disappointment in love”, “unlucky with my husband”, “husband’s inability”, “my husband was bad”, “bad partner”, “finances, husband’s dependence - on gambling, alcohol” and many others. Men in the scope of family barriers listed more the founding of their own family, the breakup of a marriage or care for their partner: “I started to like girls”, “I found a wife“, “I have a family”, “I had a child”, “housing question, finances, bad parental support, early marriage” (Data..., 2009:57).

14 See UN Convention on the Rights of the Child – paragraphs on education and participation, whose twentieth anniversary was celebrated in November 2009 (OSN, 1989).

101

R E P O R T O N T H E L I V I N G CO N D I T I O N S O F R O MA H O U S E H O L D S I N S LO VA K I A 2010

Table 8.5 Structure of the Roma population age 6+ years who are still in the school system, by type of school attended and type of settlement (in %) Common primary school Special primary school Special class in a primary school Special primary school for physically disabled Secondary vocational school Secondary school with school-leaving certificate Special secondary school* and special class in a secondary school University Individuals total

Segregated Separated Diffused Total 69.8 71.4 77.0 18.1 16.7 8.2 5.4 2.6 2.9 0.3 0.0 0.8 4.8 4.8 6.1 1.1 2.6 4.9 0.6 1.6 0.0 0.0 0.6 0.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

72.3 15.0 3.6 0.3 5.2 2.6 0.7 0.2 100.0

Note: *Special secondary school for the mentally and physically disabled. This category (together with the special class secondary school) was created due to the low numbers involve. Pupils and students for whom no reply was obtained were not included in the calculations.

of preschool age (16.6%). At this point, let’s take a look at pupils and students, in which we will be able to monitor different aspects of the educational process. Among pupils and students attending school, pupils from common primary schools predominated (72.3%). A total of 15% of Roma pupils and students attended special primary school and a special class 3.6%. A total of 19% of Roma children, therefore, were in the “special regime” at the primary school level. Among the higher degrees of education the most represented were those attending a secondary vocational school (5%); secondary school with school-leaving certificate had only half as much representation. Attendance of special schools and classes at the secondary level even from a distance did not come close to their use at the primary school level.

Special schools and classes at the primary school level were most attended by Roma children from segregated settlements. Nearly one-quarter of the total number of all Roma pupils and students was assigned to this form of education (children in special primary schools for the health disabled made up a negligible share). On the other hand, among children from settlements with the highest measure of integration this share was only half as high. The share of children from separated settlements who attended special schools was located somewhere in the middle.

The choice of a special school or class was resulted for different reasons. Among the most commonly given reasons why Roma children attend a special school or class (at the primary and secondary levels) were the statements that “the education programme is easier for the child” (26.1%) and mental disability of the child (24.5%).

With 12% of cases the respondents gave the recommendation of professional authorities (“they said that this is better for the child”).15 As the relevant graph shows, the

102

reasons which it is possible to consider as objective (mental and physical disability, test results), are related to approximately one-third of children in special schools and classes. It is necessary to take into consideration, however, the fact that self-reported mental disability by respondents themselves was not further examined, and therefore it is not possible to determine whether this always involved the result of a medical evaluation. Furthermore, testing itself carries the risk of incorrect diagnosis, particularly when Roma children are tested in the Slovak language, which assumes a certain understanding and cultural competence which is not necessarily developed in the family. It’s possible to consider as alarming the fact that a significant share of those who responded indicated that they were assigned to special schools and classes on the basis of facts which may not reflect the actual needs of the child (easier educational conditions, nearness of the school, price). The position of parents, however, isn’t very convincing, as indicated by responses to the question in regard to satisfaction with a special school/class. Three-quarters of parents expressed satisfaction with the school – 22.3% said that they are “very satisfied” and 54.3% “rather satisfied”. Only 5% of parents expressed dissatisfaction; however up to 18.5% didn’t know or were unable to express themselves.

Roma children have limited chances to draw on positive connections with socialisation in heterogeneous peer groups. A significant portion of all Roma children who were attending school at the time of the study 16 were in classes with a predominance of Roma pupils. More than one-third were being educated in classes where there were only (or almost exclusively) Roma children, and 15% in classes where there were more Roma children than non-Roma children. So that half of Roma pupils and students took part in the educational process in an eth-

15 We also included in the calculations those respondents who did not give a specific reason, because we wanted to show how large the group is of those who were unable to answer or didn’t want to answer the given question. In this case we consider this as important contextual information.

16 Any degree with the exception of preschools and day care centres, that is, aside from children of a preschool age.

R E P O R T O N T H E L I V I N G CO N D I T I O N S O F R O MA H O U S E H O L D S I N S LO VA K I A 2010

Graph 8.4 Reasons for attending a special school or classroom (in %) 0

5

10

15

20

25 26.1

Easier educational programme Mental disability

24.5

They said that this is better for the child

12.0

Closest school in the area

10.3

Test results

7.6 6.5

It is cheaper Other Physical disorder

30

3.3 1.1

Don’t know, didn’t answer

8.7

Question: Why is the child attending a special school or special classroom?

nically homogeneous environment or one with very little ethnic diversification. Approximately one-third of Roma children studied in majority environments; 26% of them were in classes with predominately non-Roma children and 6% were in classes where there were only (or almost only) non-Roma children. As it was possible to assume, experience with an ethnically differentiated environment varies by the type of school attended. Pupils from special primary schools (65.2%) and special classes at primary schools (91%) in particular had experience with an (almost) exclusively Roma structure of their class.

With regard to the above-mentioned reasons for placing Roma children into these forms of education, it can be stated that the result often of non-objective princi-

ples of selection lead to the creation of ethnically specific islands of education. Among pupils at common primary schools two situations most often occurred – classes with a predominance of non-Roma pupils (32.2%) and classes exclusively with Roma children (31.1%). Experience with almost exclusively majority classrooms, however, on the primary level (common or special schools) is almost completely absent. Conversely – for secondary vocational schools – the frequency of education in classes with almost exclusively majority structure is a great deal higher.17 Graph 8.5 partially indicates how the trends look from the viewpoint of the makeup of children in school. A generational comparison shows the growth

Table 8.6 Roma children in the school system by type of school attended and structure of classes (in %) Common primary school Only (or nearly) Roma children More Roma children than non-Roma Approximately half Roma and half non-Roma children More non-Roma children Only (or nearly) non-Roma children Individuals total

31.1 16.3 15.6 32.2 4.7 100.0

Special primary school

Special class in a primary school 65.2 15.2 14.4 3.0 2.3 100.0

90.9 0.0 9.1 0.0 0.0 100.0

Secondary vocational school 14.3 16.7 21.4 33.3 14.3 100.0

Total

36.2 15.4 16.4 26.0 6.0 100.0

Note: Only those types of schools in which there were sufficiently large numbers to allow for further classification were included in the table. The values for the total population of Roma children in the last column also include values for other types of schools which are not listed in the table. Respondents who did not reply to the question about the makeup of classrooms were eliminated from the calculations.

17 Very similar shares of Roma children in the individual types of school were also found in a study by the Roma Education Fund (2009), which was carried out using a different methodology than the UNDP study.

103

R E P O R T O N T H E L I V I N G CO N D I T I O N S O F R O MA H O U S E H O L D S I N S LO VA K I A 2010

Graph 8.5 Structure of children in school in a generational comparison by type of settlement – comparison with the geographically close general population (in %) 0

Segregated

Finished school before 1990

Separated Diffused Geographically close general population total

20

11.3

Finished school after 1990

30

Finished school after 1990

4.9

Finished school after 1990

8.1

Attends school at present

13.9

17.8

17.8

1.3 Finished school before 1990 0 8.4 2.6 Finished school after 1990 0 14.8 1.7 Attends school at present 6.9 5.8

7.4

38.0

12.8

10.2

49.5

15.7

15.5

8.9

29.9

21.0

19.0

10.3

6.4 1.5

14.4

26.9

15.2

100 6.8

52.9

29.3

90

22.6 17.6

14.1

8.9

80

27.4

18.8

12.1

70 38.9

22.3

8.0

6.6

Attends school at present

60

55.1

Finished school before 1990

Finished school after 1990

50

27.2

21.3

Attends school at present

Finished school before 1990

40

15.8

Attends school at present

Finished school before 1990

Roma population total

10

17.2 41.0

23.0

14.7 35.5

23.9

6.9

66.5 19.4

63.3

18.5

10.6

67.1

21.3 17.2

47.6 25.1

36.2

15.4

13.1 33.8

16.4

10 26.0

6

only, almost only Roma children

more non-Roma children than Roma

more Roma children than non-Roma

only, nearly only non-Roma children

approximately half and half Questions: What is the makeup of Roma and non-Roma children in your class? / What was the makeup of Roma and non-Roma children in your class (last class at primary school)?

Note: Although in the graph a comparison is shown of respondents with a finished education (outside of the school system) the last year at primary school and current pupils and students currently attending school or a class, it can still testify to existing trends. If secondary school and university students are excluded from those currently studying, the share of those attending segregated classrooms is still significantly higher.

104

of segregation in education – the highest share of children who attend a class where Roma children predominate was expressed for the current number of pupils and students. On the other hand, the least represented were segregated classes for those respondents who completed school before 1990.

A look at the structure of pupils of individual classes at primary school by age (Table 8.7) also indicates

a rather different situation for Roma and the geographically close general population. In all school classes the age range of Roma pupils was much broader than was shown for pupils from the general population. While for the general population the age distribution was two, at most three years, with the Roma pupils this was up to eight years. The largest age distribution was shown for pupils in the fifth class – Roma children from age 9

R E P O R T O N T H E L I V I N G CO N D I T I O N S O F R O MA H O U S E H O L D S I N S LO VA K I A 2010

to 16 years attended this class. The overall tendency is evident: Roma children much more often repeat classes at primary school, since in each class there are significantly more Roma of a higher age, which does not correspond to the year attended.18 The age shift also results from the entry to the first class, where it can be assumed more postponed entries for Roma children. As early as the first class of primary school a broad age structure was found for Roma children – from 6 to 10 years; in comparison, those in the first class representing the general population were exclusively ages 6 or 7 years.

The study data, however, was not sufficient to differentiate exactly whether Roma children older than 7 years were in the first class due to postponed entry to compulsory school attendance or because they were repeating the first grade.19

In association with this the question arises in regard to the zero year of primary school: whether already from start of a Roma child‘s entry into the education process it doesn‘t already disadvantage (and doesn‘t stigmatise) the child by shifting the age limit of a child at primary school in comparison with others. As several studies have shown, many Roma children, especially from segregated environments, have a certain deficit upon entry into primary school, for example, language or in relation to skills and habits which require a certain type of support measures. It is worth considering whether they should achieve such skills after entering primary school or whether it wouldn’t be a better solution if support was offered sooner – while still in the scope of preschool.20 The geographic position of Roma settlements and their poor connection with the world of the majority are

Table 8.7 Roma pupils in primary school by classes attended and age – comparison with the geographically close general population (in %) Age – in years 6 7

8

9

10

12

11

13

14

15

16

Total

1st class RP GCGP

33.6 37.5

48.4 62.5

10.7 —

4.1 —

3.3 —

— —

— —

— —

— —

— —

— —

100.0 100.0

RP GCGP

— —

24.1 18.2

41.9 72.7

20.9 9.1

7.0 —

6.3 —

— —

— —

— —

— —

— —

100.0 100.0

RP GCGP

— —

— —

25.3 30.0

36.3 50.0

28.6 20.0

9.8 —

— —

— —

— —

— —

— —

100.0 100.0

RP GCGP

— —

— —

3.3 —

8.8 21.4

46.2 42.9

25.2 28.6

11.0 —

3.3 —

2.2

— —

— —

100.0 100.0

RP GCGP

— —

— —

— —

2.2 —

23.7 37.5

22.6 50.0

30.1 12.5

11.8 —

4—3 —

2.2 —

3.2 —

100.0 100.0

RP GCGP

— —

16.2 25.0

35.2 50.0

23.8 25.0

15.2 —

4.8 —

4.8 —

100.0 100.0

RP GCGP

— —

5.7 —

11.4 —

42.9 88.9

24.3 11.1

14.3 —

1.4 —

100.0 100.0

— —

1.6 —

19.7 66.7

49.2 33.3

19.7 —

9.8 —

100.0 100.0

— —

— —

33.3 42.9

63.3 57.1

3.3 —

100.0 100.0

2nd class

3rd class

4th class

5th class

6th class

7th class

8th class RP GCGP 9th class RP GCGP

Note: Size of the total set n = 916. The listed responses include possible errors, because with this question it was not possible to check the correctness of the responses. RP=Roma population, GCGP=Geographically closed general population

18 This tendency is clearly shown despite the fact that we are aware that it could come to a certain inaccuracy with the collection of data from the side of respondents (dictating bad information about a class or the age of a child) or interviewers (incorrectly recording the given data).

19 The questionnaire used was already so extensive that it was not possible to expand data of this type in regard to monitoring additional signs and questions; for obtaining such information it would be necessary to conduct an independent study.

20 The risk of the zero years was also pointed out by qualitative research carried out in the scope of this project (interviews with social workers operating in marginalised Roma communities).

105

R E P O R T O N T H E L I V I N G CO N D I T I O N S O F R O MA H O U S E H O L D S I N S LO VA K I A 2010

Table 8.8 Structure of the Roma population which is still in the school system by distance of school from place of residence – comparison with the geographically close general population (in %)

less than 1 km 1 to 3 km 3 to 5 km 5 to 10 im more than 10 km Individual total

Roma population of pupils and students Segregated Separated Diffused Total 52.3 48.9 50.4 29.2 25.2 29.2 5.0 12.1 6.0 9.1 7.5 4.8 4.4 6.2 9.6 100.0 100.0 100.0

Geographically close general population of pupils and students 50.6 27.8 7.8 7.3 6.5 100.0

29.1 15.4 7.4 8.6 39.4 100.0

Note: Respondents who did not respond to the question were excluded from the calculations.

a well know barrier which makes participation in common activities in the majority society more difficult. One of these activities is education. As the study data shows, the geographic accessibility of schools was not at all a given, and with a generally low income level this could represent a serious problem. Half of Roma pupils and students had a school less than one kilometre from their place of residence. More than a quarter had to attend a school one to three kilometres from home. Another 6.5% of Roma children attended a school more than 10 kilometres away. For comparison, 39.4% of children from the geographically close general population had their school that far from home. This involves, however, different conditions and choices: children from the geographically close population more often attended secondary schools, which are more distant from residences (19.7% of children from the geographically close general population attended secondary school with a school-leaving certificate, in comparison with 2.5% in the set of Roma pupils and students). These data also can document a phenomenon which is described by experts and activists and which consists of the fact that non-Roma parents will register their own children at a different school if the number of Roma pupils at the school or in the class is very high. In such a way, if they can afford it financially, they prefer their child attend a geographically distant school which as a consequence deepens ethnic segregation (Kusá - Borovanová – Rusnáková, 2011; NOS, 2011). This also means that Roma children travel a greater distance for the purpose of participation in the primary degree of education and not the secondary, which creates bigger problems and higher costs for households. The situation in the three types of settlements in the given regard did not differ very much.

Up to 62% of Roma children walked to school and 34% go by bus. The bus was used in particular by children whose school was 5 kilometres or more away from home (95% of them). Children with school within one kilometre, in contrast, usually went on foot (95%).

106

With growing distance, the measure of using the bus rose, naturally: 32% of Roma children with school from 1 to 3 kilometres away went by bus, while with schools located 3 to 5 kilometres from home this was 93% of children.

With distances exceeding 10 kilometres not only were buses used (75%), but also the train (14%) or a car (9%).

A part of the study of the living conditions of Roma households was also ascertaining opinions on different facts associated with the education of children. The head of the household answered the given questions, and the answers were considered as information for the entire household. One of the questions was asked only to those households in which there were children of an age when they could attend primary or secondary school. Representatives of the households had to judge whether the children in their households “had or have the opportunity to attend school or continue their studies in school”.

A vast majority of Roma households (91.5%)21 agreed with the fact that “the children in the household had or have the opportunity to attend school or continue their studies in school”. It was shown that potential problems associated with education which some of the obtained data mentioned above indicated (for example, the assigning to special schools, the geographic accessibility of schools, etc.) are not perceived in Roma households as something that would limit the opportunities of their children. This statement applies for all Roma households without regard to the degree of integration, even though the occurrence of the conviction that children didn’t have the mentioned opportunities was two-times higher in the segregated settlements than in the diffused settlements.

In the first part of this chapter we showed that in the structure of the education level of Roma already outside the school system there was a strong representation of persons who had not continued their studies in secondary school. The fact that the high representation of persons with low education is not reflected in the prevailing aspirations in relation to the education of chil-

21 Households which were not able or did not want to respond were not taken into consideration.

R E P O R T O N T H E L I V I N G CO N D I T I O N S O F R O MA H O U S E H O L D S I N S LO VA K I A 2010

dren who at the time of the study were attending school can be evaluated positively. This follows from responses to the question which was asked of the “heads of the households” where at the time of the study lived children attending primary or secondary school. Since the question was addressed to representatives of households, we will not speak about the preferences of persons when interpreting responses to this question but about the preferences of households. Three-quarters of households which answered the question22 wished their children would continue studying at some secondary school after finishing primary school. Definitive agreement was expressed by 37%, more cautious agreement by 39%. Disagreement was expressed by 24.3% of households, and the majority of them (16.5%) expressed more cautious disagreement. Parents with the ambition that their children continue further in their education after completing primary school were most often recruited among households living in diffused settlements (79.4%), while the lowest representation was found among households from segregated settlements (72.6%). It is necessary to emphasise, however, that in their case, it also involved a high occurrence of educational aspirations in relation to their children.

Among households which did not plan further studies for their children, the conviction occurred significantly more often that their children did not have the opportunity to attend school or continue in their studies. The prevalence of such a conviction (26%) was more than three-times higher among the mentioned households than in the entire set of Roma households with children at primary school and more than ten-times higher in comparison with households which wanted their child’s education to continue. To the question of why they wouldn’t want their children to continue with school after completing primary school, only part of the relevant respondents replied, which led to their being a small number of responses and subsequently a limitation of the interpretative potential of the obtained data.

Among the responses, however, the fear that the household would not be able to handle it financially clearly dominated as the reason for it – more than half of respondents (households) which responded to the question gave this reason.

While for children attending primary school the majority of households leaned toward their children continue further in their education, in the case of studying at secondary school the situation was different. The majority of Roma households (64%),23 in which a secondary school student lived, would not want their children to continue studying at university (up to one-fifth of them expressed strong disagreement). The highest

share of households with such an opinion was living in diffused settlements, where it achieved 81%. In segregated (65%) and separated (41%) settlements the given opinion occurred less often. The differences between the types of settlements, however, it is not necessary to overestimate, because the absolute number of households which had children at a secondary school was low. Despite this fact (with awareness of the given limitation), it is possible to state that what at first glance appears to be a lack of parental ambition, is according to the responses of the households themselves in particular a matter of economic uncertainty. The most common justification given for the unwillingness to send a child to university was namely the fear that the household would be unable to pay for it. Other reasons, among which the respondents could choose from, were represented only marginally in comparison with the financial reason.

8.3. Literacy Achieved level of education is only one indicator, what’s more a formal indicator, of the level of education. The effectiveness of the educational process, respectively of the impact of not enrolling in the school system, was measured in the study by two indicators of literacy focused on the skills of reading and writing: the ability to read the news and the ability to write a one-page letter.

Literacy plays a key role in modern society. It is the entry gate to receiving and processing information, to education, to access to the labour market and the media, to the use of free time; in short, to functioning in the whole order of life situations. Individuals should have skills that allow them to function effectively, to work with information, to communicate socially, to be capable of participating in the operation of society. The insufficient literacy which some individuals and groups of people have even in developed countries is often labelled as a paradox of human development.

Table 8.9 shows us different indicators of literacy of Roma for different age groups. It follows from the table that not even school attendance is a guarantee of literacy. In the Roma population age 16-64 years which at present no longer attends school but which attended school in the past, as many as 28.4% said that they read only with problems or not at all, and 33.9% in this age group expressed the same about their ability to write. As many as 36.8% of this group from the Roma population had a problem with at least one of the skills which are considered as indicators of literacy. As can be further seen from the table, the youngest generation of pupils and students (even after exclusion of those younger than 10

22 Households which did not respond to the question or gave “other” as an answer were not taken into consideration.

23 Households which did not respond to the question or gave “other” as an answer were not taken into consideration.

107

R E P O R T O N T H E L I V I N G CO N D I T I O N S O F R O MA H O U S E H O L D S I N S LO VA K I A 2010

Table 8.9 Indicators of literacy for different age groups of the Roma population and a comparison with the geographically close general population (in %)

Whole set except pre-primary school children Attended school in past (all) Attended school in past (16-64) All 16-64 All 16-24 (Nro = 407; Ngp = 75) All 25-34 (Nro = 417; Ngp = 119) All 35-44 (Nro = 355; Ngp = 89) All 45-54 (Nro = 271; Ngp = 113) All 55+ (Nro = 217; Ngp = 245) Currently attending school (all) Currently attending school (age 10+ years)

Reads with problems or not at all

Writes with problems or not at all

At least 1 problem

Roma population

General population

Roma population

General population

Roma population

General population

33.8 28.8 28.4 29.2 25.8 28.8 29.0 30.4 38.3 49.6 41.5

1.7 1.2 0.6 0.8 4 — — — 2.4 5.1 4.1

40.8 34.8 33.9 34.6 32.6 33.2 35.4 32.8 49.5 59.8 53.1

3.0 2.5 0.8 1.0 4.1 — — — 5.3 6.4 4.2

43.7 33.8 36.8 37.9 37.3 36.0 38.0 36.5 50.2 63.0 57.4

3.7 1.7 1.1 1.7 6.7 — — — 5.7 7.5 5.5

Note: The table presents the combined percentage shares of the given groups of those who have a problem with the given activity or can’t perform them at all. Only respondents who answered the question are included.

years) and the oldest generation, age 55 years and older, had the most problems in regard to literacy.

Let’s take a closer look at the structure of Roma children age 10+ currently attending school and who have problems with reading and writing. Of all the children age 10 years and older who currently attend school and reported having difficulty with reading a newspaper, 64.4% attended a common primary school, 26.0% a special primary school and 5.8% attended a special class in a primary school. The remaining 3.9 % were students from secondary vocational schools or special secondary schools for the mentally disabled. In the case of writing a letter, 67.9% of the defined group of Roma children was made up of pupils from common primary schools; 23.4% attended a special primary school and 4.4 percent a special class in a primary school24.

A still different view of children age 10 years and older is offered by a comparison within the category of common primary school. Of the Roma children age 10+ years attending a common primary school 40% reported problems with reading a newspaper; among the geographically close general population this was only 5%.

As many as 54.4% of children age 10 years and older attending a common primary school had problems with writing a short letter; in the same group of the general population this was again only 5%. And 56.7% of Roma children age 10 years and older attending a common primary school had a problem with at least one of the ac-

108

tivities, while from the general population this was less than one-tenth as many children (only 5%).

A comparison of literacy of the Roma population for all age groups with the general population reveals an alarming disparity in the results of the educational process.25

8.4. Attending nursery school before entry into the school system In connection with the successful adaptation of Roma children in the educational system, one of the most important prerequisites mentioned in the professional literature and in policy recommendations is nursery school attendance prior to entering primary school. It is spoken of as a possible way for broad groups of Roma children from disadvantaged environments to overcome the lag in the skills and prerequisites for entry to compulsory school attendance and for their overall more successful adaptation in the educational process, which their household environments and socialisation are unable to provide (UNDP, 2006; Kusá – Rusnáková – Koželová, 2011). In the study the attendance of children at a nursery school was monitored for a group of current pupils or students who were asked whether they had attended a nursery school prior to entry to primary school and for how long, and then the present nursery school attendance for a group of preschool-age children was ascertained.

24 The overall structure of the age 10 years and older group of Roma children was as follows: common primary school = 67.9%; special primary school = 16.3%; special class in a primary school = 3.7%; secondary school for mentally disabled children = 0.8%; remaining 11.4% of this Roma set studied at a common secondary vocational school or secondary school.

25 With interpretations of the results of studying literacy, it is necessary, however, to also observe the large number of non-respondents to these two questions. This was 18% of all Roma respondents outside the school system (325 from a total number n = 1,846) and 25% of the geographically close general population outside the school system (196 of the total number n = 777); in the case of current pupils and students the share of non-respondents was higher still (59% for the Roma subset and 55% for the general).

R E P O R T O N T H E L I V I N G CO N D I T I O N S O F R O MA H O U S E H O L D S I N S LO VA K I A 2010

As Table 8.10 shows, among Roma children and young people who at the time of the study were pupils at a primary school or students at a secondary school or university, a total of 53.1% of them attended a nursery school for at least some minimal time prior to entry into the school system. Such a level of schooling markedly lagged behind pupils and students from the geographically close general population, 88% of whom had experience with a nursery school environment. But this wasn’t the only difference which was shown between the two populations. While with pupils and students representing the geographically close general population the share of former nursery school pupils grew with increased period of going to nursery school (nearly half of them attended nursery school for a period of three years and longer, more than a quarter two years, and 16% for just one year or less), for Roma pupils and students this was fully the opposite – the largest share fell to the group attending nursery school for a year or less (up to 35% of the entire 53% who attended nursery school before primary school) and the least represented were those attending for three years and more (6%). Or in other words – only a minimum of Roma children and young people

who at the time of the study were attending primary school or a higher level of education had previously attended nursery school for a period of three years or more; on the other hand, nursery school attendance for one year or less was predominant in this group.

The schooling of current Roma pupils and students in nursery schools changed according to the type of settlement: the highest was among those living diffused and the lowest for those living separated. From pupils and students representing Roma households living diffused, nearly 61% attended a nursery school prior to starting primary school; among children and youths from segregated settlements this was only 45%, and the majority of these attended nursery school only one year or less.

Certain comparisons in time which allow the level of preschool schooling of Roma pupils and students for the age group up to 10 years and 10 years or older to be monitored showed a certain decline in the case of those living segregated. Pupils up to age 10 years were shown to have a lower level of schooling than older pupils and students by nearly 10%. This would signal that in the last period before the actual carrying out of the

Table 8.10 Schooling of selected groups of Roma children and youths in nursery schools – comparison of the subsets and with the geographically close general population (in %) Roma population Segregated Separated (n=340) (n=315) Pupils and students total Didn’t attend Attended Of this: less than a year 1 year 2 years 3 years and more other Schooling of pupils and students to 10 years 11 and more year Nursery school pupils 3-6 years total Doesn’t attend Attends Of this: Parents don’t want it none nearby is often ill don’t have the money too small other reason Schooling of preschoolers age 3-6 years - age 3-4 years - in age 5-6 years

Diffused (n=245)

Total (n=900)

Geographically close general population (n=160)

Did you attend a nursery school prior to starting at primary school? If yes, for how long?

55.0 44.1 39.2 46.9 11.9 45.0 55.9 60.8 53.1 88.1 Length of nursery school attendance...

11.8 11.4 13.9 12.2 0.6 20.3 19.4 30.6 22.8 15.6 7.6 16.5 9.0 11.1 26.3 4.1 7.6 7.3 6.2 45.6 1.2 1.0 — 0.8 — Total responses “yes, attends” 50.6 60.7 60.4 56.3 88.4 59.4 52.8 61.2 60.5 87.9 This child attends nursery school? If no, please tell why: 97.0 80.4 73.3 80.8 44.1 13.0 19.6 26.7 19.2 55.9 Reasons for not attending nursery school: 16.5 26.1 24.4 21.9 5.9 16.5 1.1 3.3 7.7 2.9 1.7 3.3 2.2 2.4 — 28.7 13.0 17.8 20.5 2.9 20.9 22.8 18.9 20.9 20.6 2.6 14.1 6.7 7.4 — Total responses “yes attends” 5.6 14.0 20.4 12.5 40.0 25.6 26.2 36.1 28.9 78.6

Note: Data is for respondents who responded to the question. With schooling for the individual age groups of preschoolers, if only two years were tracked, the numbers in the individual categories were too low to allow monitoring individual reasons in depth.

109

R E P O R T O N T H E L I V I N G CO N D I T I O N S O F R O MA H O U S E H O L D S I N S LO VA K I A 2010

field study (around years 2006 – 2009)26 the share of children from segregated settlements attending nursery school was lower than in the previous period. For those living separated the level of schooling was higher in older children, that is, it’s as if the schooling of these children gradually increased with time; in the case of children from Roma households living diffused and children from the geographically close general population no difference was evident – the level of schooling of both compared groups of current pupils and students was approximately the same.

If we look at the situation for children who at the time of the study were of the preschool age of 3-6 years, more than half of those children from the general population (55.9%) attended nursery school at the time of the survey, while from the Roma population this was only onefifth (19.2%). And again the direction toward excluded settlements the share of those attending school decreased: from 26.7% for those living diffused to 13% for those living in segregated settlements.

And what were the primary reasons for not attending nursery school among children age 3-6 years?

On average for the Roma population of these children the strongest reason given for not attending nursery school was the unwillingness of parents to send them (“we don’t want to send our child to school”); further, a significant group of Roma parents considered a large part of the defined group of children of age 3-6 years (probably children age 3-4-years) as too young to attend nursery school, and in third place were financial reasons (“we don’t have the money for nursery school”). For the group living segregated the order for the reasons for not attending nursery school differed: in first place was a lack of financial resources, in second the perception of the child as being too young to attend a nursery school, and in third was the absence of a school in the surroundings (together with the unwillingness of parents to send a child to school).

In all of the compared subgroups the level of schooling of children of a preschool age was significantly lower for the group defined by age 3-4 years as opposed to the age group of children age 5-6 years. Calculations show that older preschoolers representing the geographically close general population attended school two time more than the younger (nearly 80% to 40%), and in the case of the overall Roma population the growth when comparing the younger and older children was more than triple (from a level of 12.5% percent of schooling in chil-

110

dren to age three and four to nearly 30% among those age 5-6 years), and for the group living segregated the level of schooling eventually grew up to five-times higher (from not quite 6% to over 25%).

The attendance of nursery school turned out to be on the basis of the research data significantly smaller for Roma children versus those from the geographically close general population. In some groups of children this ultimately involved lagging 3-4 times behind, as an example, with comparisons of current preschoolers age 3 to 4 years or age 5 to 6 years. From Roma children age 5-6 years less than one-third attended a nursery school, while from the general population this was nearly fourfifths. With the growth of spatial segregation the schooling of Roma children decreased. For the most part, according to the study data, it’s as if the very group of children who most need nursery school prior to entry to primary school actually utilise it the least. The reasons for non-attendance of nursery school were insufficient finances, the conviction regarding the child being too immature for nursery school, but also – particularly in segregated environments – the absence of such a facility in the surroundings and the unwillingness of parents to send a child to a school. Interventions aimed at increasing the schooling of Roma children in a preschool facility should focus specifically on overcoming these barriers.27

8.5. Expenditures for education With school attendance there are always associated certain costs for households whose amount derives from the number of children in the household, the type of school attended, its distance from the home, etc. The financial demand of items associated with compulsory school attendance and other forms of study strongly resonate among Roma households. Logically, that which to the majority society could sound like a common, less significant expenditure for a household, in the environment with the accumulation of socioeconomic risks becomes a burden which can seriously disrupt living conditions of households or also lead to a decision between “bad and worse solutions” (leaving school and the like). In the study of living conditions expenditures for the education of children were approached in two ways. First of all, representatives of households had to evaluate whether and to what extent their household was capable of covering the expenditures associated with the education of chil-

26 Since we are speaking about pupils age 6 to 10 years and the study was carried out in the year 2010, it approximately involves the period of one to four years before the collection of data (around the years 2006 – 2009).

27 As qualitative research activities following the questionnaire survey showed, nearly all experts working directly in Roma communities expressed the need or even necessity of nursery school attendance by Roma children. Aside from the potential strengthening of Slovak or another official language of education, here they saw a chance to support the skills of children, which would ease their entry into compulsory education (from hygienic habits up to holding a pencil, etc.). The resolution of this lag for primary school in the form of a zero year has often been labelled overdue.

R E P O R T O N T H E L I V I N G CO N D I T I O N S O F R O MA H O U S E H O L D S I N S LO VA K I A 2010

Table 8.11 Average sums spent on education of Roma children (in EUR) Average sum (in EUR) Segregated Separated Diffused

Standard deviation 46.1 66.6 62.6

Standard error 73.5 65.5 76.9

Confidence interval (95 %) Lower limit Upper limit 4.0 38.2 3.7 59.3 4.9 52.9

54.0 73.9 72.3

Note: Testing criterion F in the ANOVA procedure had a value of 7.29 with two degrees of freedom.

dren. Second, an estimate of the total sum of financial resources which the household spends in association with school attendance was determined. On one hand, we obtain an idea about the amount of expenditures, and on the other hand an image of their subjective perceptions.

The question regarded an estimate of the sum of expenditures related to the total sum which households spent on the education of children from the start of the school year. Since the field collection of data took place in the months of November – December, the responses obtained cover the period of approximately three months. The total sum should have included different types of expenditures: school fees, expenditures for books and school supplies, transport, meals and the like. It was shown that Roma households spend for children attending school (primary, secondary and university) in the given period was on average EUR 58 (the median was EUR 35).28 The average costs for education varied by the tracked types of settlements. The highest average sum (EUR 67) we find among Roma in separated settlements, while for diffused households this was EUR 63.

Segregated settlements in this regard are in a significantly different position – the average sum of expenditures for education of a child there represented EUR 46, which was beneath the average expenditures for households with higher spatial integration and beneath the overall average. The ANOVA procedure showed that the average expenditures for the education of Roma children differed significantly between the individual types of settlements on a level of significance of 0.01.29 This means that the differences were not caused by a random selection error, but possibly can also be found in the primary, total population. On the basis of a Bonferroni post hoc test it is possible to state that statistically significant differences exist between the average expenditures of households in segregated settlements and diffused settlements as well as between average expenditures in segregated settlements and in separated settlements. This means that expenditures in segregated settlements were significantly lower than in the remaining two types of settlements.

Information about average sums can be supplemented with data on the distribution of expenditures into intervals created by the re-categorisation of the sum given by respondents. As Table 8.12 shows, six expenditure categories were created, with the lowest category limited by an upper limit of EUR 20, and the highest category defined by a lower limit of EUR 101. The most often represented interval was the lowest – the sum from EUR 2 to EUR 20 was spent for more than one-third of Roma children. With an increasing level of the sums, their representation dropped. High expenditures in the amount of EUR 81 to EUR 100 were paid for one-tenth of Roma children; the same also applies for expenditures in an amount over EUR 100. Together then, in the case of onefifth of Roma children, expenditures for education totalled over EUR 80. This is a relatively high amount, particularly when the high probability that in Roma households there are a number of children attending school is taken into consideration. Segregated settlements showed the highest representation of a sum from the bottom interval: for half of Roma children from segregated settlements sums in the amount of EUR 2 to EUR 20 were spent, and expenditures for the higher level were represented a great deal less. The education of 6.9% of Roma from segregated settlements “cost” over EUR 100. In separated settlements expenditures for education most often shifted in the range from EUR 21 to EUR 40 EUR: such amounts were paid for one-quarter of Roma children. With children from separated settlements, however, it’s possible to observe a significantly higher representation of higher expenditures – expenditures over EUR 80 were paid in nearly 30% of them. Diffused households from the viewpoint of amount of expenditures moved somewhere in the middle between separated and segregated settlements.

The lower expenditure intervals were relatively strongly represented, as were the highest.

As we have already mentioned, data about the costs for education were collected in November and December and covered the period from the start of the school year (thus, the three months from the start of Sep-

28 This involves the average value of all obtained responses (not in relation to the number of months, we will deal with average monthly expenditures at the end of the chapter). Responses covered 93% of all children attending school. The confidence interval (95%) for the average of the whole set was EUR 53.00 – 62.60.

29 Levene‘s test of variance homogeneity was statistically insignificant, thus, one of the key assumptions of this procedure was fulfilled. The testing criterion F had a value of 7.29 with two degrees of freedom.

111

R E P O R T O N T H E L I V I N G CO N D I T I O N S O F R O MA H O U S E H O L D S I N S LO VA K I A 2010

Table 8.12 Amount of expenditures of Roma households for the education of children by type of settlement (in %, average in EUR) Segregated EUR 2 - 20 EUR 21 - 40 EUR 41 - 60 EUR 61 - 80 EUR 81 - 100 EUR 101 and more Households total Average sum (in EUR)

Separated 50.4 18.8 16.7 3.0 4.2 6.9 100.0 46

Diffused 24.1 25.2 14.2 6.8 16.8 12.9 100.0 66

Total 29.0 16.3 25.3 4.9 11.8 12.7 100.0 63

35.4 20.3 18.2 4.8 10.7 10.6 100.0 58

Note: The table presents the percentage representation of sums which households stated that they paid for a child or children who attended school. In the case that there were more children in a household, several sums corresponding to expenditures for each child were recorded.

tember). On the basis of this information it’s possible to determine average monthly expenditures, which standardise the obtained sums to a unified time basis. The average monthly sum of costs for education in Roma households thus represented EUR 23;30 the median had a value of EUR 14. The highest average monthly expenditures were in separated settlements (EUR 27), the lowest in segregated (EUR 19).

Questions about perceived expenditures for education were asked individually of households with children at the primary and secondary school levels. The majority of Roma households in which children attending primary school lived, perceived the costs associated with their education as a problem. Half of these households said that they were capable of covering expenditures for education of children only with difficulties or with great difficulties.31 The highest share of households with such problems came from segregated settlements – up to 65% of households here mentioned the occurrence of difficulties or great difficulties. For comparison: among Roma households living diffused difficulties with expenditures for education (the response “with difficulties”

and with “great difficulties”) were significantly less frequent; their prevalence was lower by 18 percentage points. Diffused Roma households showed a greater ability to meet obligations following from compulsory school attendance at the primary level. The share of households which managed this easily and very easily was higher than in the other types of settlements. The occurrence (or absence) of financial difficulties is also expressed in the perceived chances for children to attend school or continue in studies. Nearly all households which said that they were able to cover all expenditures for school easily or only with certain difficulties were convinced that the children in their households had the opportunity to attend school or continue in their studies.

Conversely, among households which managed expenditures for primary school with difficulties or even with great difficulties, only 13% said that their children didn’t have such an opportunity.

The same questions were also asked of households with children attending secondary school. It was shown that study at secondary school represented a financial burden for a significant portion of Roma

Table 8.13 Average monthly sums spent by Roma households for education of children (in EUR) Average sum (in EUR) Segregated Separated Diffused

Standard deviation 18.5 26.6 25.0

Standard error 29.4 26.2 30.7

Confidence interval (95 %) Lower limit Upper limit 1.6 15.3 1.5 23.7 1.9 21.2

21.6 29.6 28.9

Note: Testing criterion F in the ANOVA procedure had a value of 7.29 with two degrees of freedom.

112

30 The 95-percent confidence interval for the average was EUR 21 – 25.

31 We are working with combined variants of responses. The original variants had the following form: very easy, easy, relatively easy, with certain difficulties, with difficulties and with great difficulties. The percentage shares are expressed from the set from which households without children attending primary school and those who did not respond were excluded.

32 When interpreting the responses to this question it is necessary to bear in mind the overall low number of responding households (n = 59 households with children at secondary school). We are working with combined variants of responses. The original variants had the same form as with the question about children attending primary schools. The percentage shares are expressed from the set from which households without children attending secondary school and those who did not respond were excluded. In view of the low number of responses we will not analyse further the position regarding additional education for children after finishing secondary school.

R E P O R T O N T H E L I V I N G CO N D I T I O N S O F R O MA H O U S E H O L D S I N S LO VA K I A 2010

Graph 8.6 Structure of Roma households by ability to cover expenditures for the education of children for primary school and type of settlement (in %) 0% All Roma households Diffused

10%

5.0 7.9

20%

9.5

30%

40%

60%

70%

35.3

11.1

80%

46.2 64.8

Very easily and easily

With certain difficulties

Relatively easily

With difficulties and great difficulties

households.32 Nearly half of the households (48%) stated that they covered expenditures for education with great difficulties or with difficulties. Another 34% spoke about “certain difficulties”. Similarly as with expenditures for children attending primary school, in this case difficulties also occurred more often in segregated settlements (52.6%). The lowest prevalence was recorded in households living diffused (42.9%).

Conclusions In the part of the Roma population which at the time of the study no longer attended any school in the educational system, low education predominated. Nearly one-fifth of Roma (19%) ended their education without finishing a standard primary school, and nearly threefifths of them had finished standard primary school (60%). A total of 17% of the relevant Roma population successfully continued in further study at a secondary school. The most abundant category here was made up of individuals with finished secondary school or vocational school (15%) and those with finished secondary school with a school-leaving certificate added only a small share (2%), similarly as with holders of a university education (0.3%). The remaining nearly 5% of the surveyed subset attended in their preparation for a profession some type of special school. Men and women showed certain differences in terms of degree of achieved education. Those who did not continue on to secondary school in their studies occurred significantly more often among Roma women. Differences are also evident in the representations of the higher degrees of education: the gender difference in the share of persons with a finished secondary education was more than 9 percentage points to the disadvantage of Roma women.

The educational structure of the surveyed Roma women can as a whole be evaluated as moderately lagging behind the educational structure of men.

100%

38.1

37.1 26.8

90%

50.3 42.9

Separated

6.1 10.6 1.4 Segregated 7.0

50%

Pupils from common primary schools predominated (72%) among the part of the Roma population which at the time of the study had not yet finished the educational process; 15% of Roma pupils and students attended a special primary school and 3.6% a special class.

In other words, nearly 19% of Roma children were at the primary school level of education in a “special education programme”. Among the higher levels of education, the most represented from among the Roma population still in the school system were those attending a secondary vocational school (5%), while secondary school with a school-leaving certificate had half that share (2.6%).

It was shown that even school attendance is no guarantee of literacy. In the Roma population age 16-64 years which is not attending school, but which attended school in the past, 28.4% said that they read only with problems or not at all; this same group also reported that 33.9% had the same problems with writing. In addition, 36.8% of them had a problem with at least one of the skills considered as indicators of literacy. A comparison of literacy in the Roma population, for all age groups, with the geographically close general population reveals an alarming disparity in the results of the educational process. Special schools and classes at the primary level were most often attended by Roma children from segregated settlements; on the other hand, among children from households living diffuse, this share only half as high.

On the basis of the study data nursery school attendance was significantly smaller for Roma children versus children from the geographically close general population. Some groups of children were lagging 3-4-times behind, as for example, in a comparison with current preschoolers age 3-4 years or age 5-6 years. Less than onethird of Roma children age 5-6 years attended nursery school, while from the general population this was nearly four-fifths. The schooling of Roma children decreased with a growth in spatial segregation. On the whole, according to the study data, it’s as if the very group of children who most need nursery school prior to en-

113

R E P O R T O N T H E L I V I N G CO N D I T I O N S O F R O MA H O U S E H O L D S I N S LO VA K I A 2010

BOX 8.1: ROMA AND SPECIAL SCHOOLS One of the key and long-term problems in Slovakia in the area of education of the Roma is their excessive placement into special schools and special classrooms. This practice has been confirmed by many studies and non-governmental organisations. According to a study of the Roma Educational Fund (REF) from 2009, up to 60% of all pupils in special schools are Roma from marginalised Roma communities (MRC) and in special classes at common primary school ultimately more than 86% of all pupils come from an MRC. Secondary analysis of data from UNDP 2005 (Brüggemann, 2011) showed that language strongly influences the probability that a child will be assigned to a special school or a special class. For Roma children who listed Romani as their mother tongue, the risk of being assigned to this type a facility is 2.9-times higher. According to the Institute of Information and Prognosis in Education (IIPE) in the 2010/2011 school year the share of pupils from a socially disadvantaged environment (SDE) in special schools was roughly one-third of all pupils. Even though the SDE category is not completely identical with the MRC category, this data is in itself alarming.

The material Strategy of the Slovak Republic for the Integration of the Roma up to 2020 states that: “The gap in the formal educational level of Roma (especially marginalized) population compared to the majority population is tremendous....The vicious circle of social exclusion is further reinforced by the fact that Roma students from the marginalized communities often fail at the elementary schools because they are unable to socialize in the current system of schooling (the process of socialization is too short)... or are immediately from the start of compulsory school attendance assigned to or shifted into the system of special schools. Those segregated in schools (or special classes) for the medical disadvantaged or mentally disabled obtain a stigma which for them with high probability means the impossibility of getting out of their ghettoized environment of the settlement.” (ÚSVPRK, 2012:26).

Special schools are intended for pupils with health disadvantages, and these schools are divided into 11 categories by the type of health disadvantage. Pupils from an SDE/MRC are most often assigned to classes for students with a light degree of mental disability (variant A).

The incorrect assigning of Roma children to special schools is according to non-governmental experts a complex problem which must be resolved by reform of the content and form of psychological-diagnostic tests, by institutional reform of the system of pedagogical-psychological consulting, prevention, but mainly the financing and functioning of the special schools themselves. A topical study of the Open Society Foundation (OSF, 2011) formulates in this association recommended measures aimed at the inclusiveness of education of all pupils at schools in Slovakia.

BOX 8.2: CHILDREN IN SPECIAL SCHOOLS AND SPECIAL CLASSROOMS IN STANDARD SCHOOLS (1989 – 2010) With the tracking of children attending special schools, it is possible in a comparison of the past two decades to observe a growth tendency which shows the increasing frequency of this type of school has intensified significantly over the past four years.

0 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993

5 000

10 000

15 000

20 000

25 000

30 000

35 000 31 348

30 415 29 612 29 205 29 292

1994

29 947

1995

29 914

1996

29 720

1997

29 222 29 816

1998 1999

30 736

2000

30 867

2001 2002 2003

32 244 32 494 32 782 30 566

2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010

40 000

31 390 31 348 34 351 35 106 35 449 36 006

Source: SLOVSTAT database. Bratislava, Statistical Office of the Slovak Republic 2011.

Note: Table shows total numbers of children attending special schools of various kind and of various classification. From total of 36 006 children in special schooling 25 112 were attending special schools and 10 894 special classrooms. In 2010 there were 3 734 intellectually gifted children (10,4 %). (For more look: http://www.uips.sk/prehlady-skol/statisticka-rocenka—-specialne-skoly).

114

R E P O R T O N T H E L I V I N G CO N D I T I O N S O F R O MA H O U S E H O L D S I N S LO VA K I A 2010

try to primary school actually utilise it the least. Reasons for non-attendance of nursery school were a lack of finances, the conviction that the child was too immature for nursery school, but also – particularly in segregated environments – the absence of such a facility in the surroundings and the unwillingness of parents to send a child to a school.

With school attendance there are always associated certain costs for households whose amount derives from the number of children in the household, the type of school attended, its distance from the home, etc. The financial demand of items associated with compulsory school attendance and other forms of study strongly res-

onate among Roma households. It was shown that the average monthly sum of costs for education in Roma households thus represented EUR 23, and the median value was EUR 14. The highest average monthly expenditures were in separated settlements (EUR 27), the lowest in segregated settlements (EUR 19). Half of households with children at primary school stated in the survey that they are capable of covering the expenditures for the education of their children only with difficulties or with great difficulties. The highest share of households with such problems came from segregated settlements, where up to 65% of households said that they experienced such difficulties or great difficulties.

BOX 8.3: DEFICITS IN EDUCATION AS A BARRIER TO REALISING DREAMS According to the study Data on Human Rights of Roma Women from 2009 many Roma men, but more often women, from non-integrated communities perceive their own lack of education early departure from the educational system or lack of own studiousness and support of the surroundings with learning as the main barrier to realising their lifelong dreams. They touched upon two aspects in particular – a lack of education and their own lack of effort during their school years, but also the lack of help and support in learning.

Men mentioned among the barriers to achieving their life’s goals a lack of education (“I’m not educated”, “I didn’t achieve a higher education”, “unfinished school”, “I didn’t finish school”, “I didn’t have finished schooling”, “I didn’t go to school much”); as well as their own failure at studying (“I was lackadaisical, I don’t have schooling”, “I didn’t want to study”, “I didn’t want to learn”, “I didn’t study”, “I was lazy”, “ bad work at school”“, “poor marks”, “I studied badly”, “not much ability”, “I wasn’t up for it”, “truancy”, “with me – lack of perseverance, irresponsibility in schools”). This was equally the case with Roma women – they commented on their dislike of learning during school attendance with the words: “I hung around, didn’t do school”, “education, my laziness”, “I didn’t want to study”, “I didn’t study”, “I didn’t learn well”, “ laziness and stupidity”, “ poor school results”, “I studied badly”, “I should have studied better”, “I was stupid - I didn’t go to school”, “I didn’t try”.

Some Roma women and men pointed out the lack of help and support with learning: “I didn’t have anyone to advise me”, “I didn’t understand the teaching, they didn’t help me at home”, “perhaps because I did so little, but I also didn’t have much support at home”, “because no one at school supported me and woke me up, so I left school”. (Data..., 2009: 59-60).

BOX 8.4: STATEMENTS OF ROMA WOMEN AND MEN REGARDING PROBLEMS AT PRIMARY SCHOOL According to the study Data on Human Rights of Roma Women from 2009, the share of Roma residents from non-integrated communities, who in their memories of primary school provided some negative experience or problem, was 43% of the surveyed set. The prevalence of negative experiences and situations related to primary school rather differed depending on the degree of education achieved: from those with special school and unfinished primary school about half and more mentioned negative situations from school (nearly 70% of men), and in the upper degrees of education this was significantly less. The negative facts and experiences given were relatively mixed.

Some respondents pointed out the poor accessibility of the school; it mattered to them getting up for school or travelling, or the too-long school-time: “commuting to school”, “the daily commute”, “transport”, “the afternoon learning”, “the long-lasting learning”, “travelling, I often caught cold”, “I had to get up in the morning”, “it was not possible to commute regularly”, “pretty far away”, “mama saw us off to school part of the way and then we crossed through the forest on foot... ”.

A large portion of the surveyed Roma men and women recalled their classmates negatively (all or individuals); most often this involved name-calling and mocking (also based on ethnic differences), which sometimes grew into meaningful conflicts (with boys getting in fights).

A number of Roma women and men met directly with discrimination or unequal treatment at primary school: “the racism”, “the racist attacks”, “derogation of the Roma”, “the teachers had innuendo for Roma, they did not handle it well”, “they treated us differently”, “they threw us all into one pocket”, “prejudices”, “discrimination”, “racism, namely that we didn’t have school supplies, because our younger siblings took them”, “they made distinctions between Roma – non-Roma”, etc.

Experiences with segregated practices were not unique: “classmates - they didn’t want to sit with me”, “the whites didn’t want to sit with me”, “I sat in the last seat”, “we always sat in the back and the white kids wouldn’t sit with us”, “we Roma children sat in the corner, away from the others.”

The cited study included to the last group of barriers and problems at primary school: language barriers (“I couldn’t speak Slovak”), barriers consisting of methodological approaches and dictates (“I didn’t understand what they wanted from me”), unequal chance following from a lack of abilities of a family to learn with children and support them in studying (“no one explained to me things I didn’t understand”, “I missed a lot and I didn’t know how to catch up”, “I had no one to help me”“), but also barriers consisting of the family and its social situation (Data..., 2009: 76-80).

115

09

Exclusion from the labour market

In general, integration into the labour market and the quality of such integration is considered as the first and most important prerequisite for prevention of poverty.

Employment, or broader participation, and the quality of activities in the scope of paid work are a fundamental source of the income needed for a household to avoid material or another form of deprivation and exclusion.

Conversely, insufficient work opportunities, both qualitative and quantitative, increase the probability of a household and its members falling into the risk of poverty. Perhaps all studies of Roma households from recent years have come to the same conclusion: they point out the weak and insufficient opportunities for employment for people of Roma nationality caused primarily by low qualifications and discrimination, which is perceived as the main reason for poverty and exclusion (At Risk..., 2005; Poverty..., 2002; Data on..., 2009; De Laat et al., 2009; EK, 2005, 2011; Ivanov – Trusaliev, 2006; Mušinka, 2004; Revenga et al., 2006; Ringold, 2004; Vašečka (ed.), 2002; UNDP, 2002, 2006).

In the study of the living conditions of Roma households several dimensions and indicators from the field of relation to the labour market were monitored. The following chapter presents them in order from the most

Graph 9.1 Structure of the Roma population age 15+ years by economic status (in %) 2.3 5.2

6.9 9.9

8.3

10.9

2.0

54.3 Pupils, students Working Unemployed At home

Parental or maternity leave Old-age pension Disability pension Other (including OČD)

Question: What is your economic standing at the moment?

Note: OČD = caring for a household member.

general and subjective to the more specific and more objective. Some captured the current situation at the time of the study; others tracked the entire “adult” work history of the respondents. The majority of the indicators used testify about the population age 15 years and older; however, with some a specifically narrower age interval is used. Aside from a basic description of the situation for the field of employment of the studied Roma population, the analysis also tracked the mutual associations between the individual measures of employment or unemployment as well as possible reasons for the existing unfavourable state and the consequences on the economic situation of households.

9.1. Declared economic activities and employment According to the above-mentioned studies, relations to the labour market can be determined in different ways.

Each features positive sides and also has its disadvantages.

Therefore, a combination of several indicators seems to be the best starting point. Thus, the simplest and broadest is the self-classification of respondents on the basic of economic status.

9.1.1. Structure of the Roma population age 15+ years by economic status With a look at the declared economic status for the Roma set age 15 years and older, this study also showed that the largest representation was in the unemployed (Graph 9.1).

A total of 54.3% of the surveyed individuals were identified as having such a position on the labour market. The overall representation of those working, thus far without regard to the type of work activity, was approximately onetenth (9.9%). This means that on the basis of subjective declaration a total of 64.2% of the surveyed Roma set age 15+ years are included in the labour force, while the remaining 35.8% gave a status of economic inactivity – they were outside the labour market.

Among the economically inactive the most numerous category was made up persons on maternity or parental leave, with 10.9%, followed by old-age pensioners with 8.3%. The share of disability pensioners was 5.2% of the surveyed Roma population age 15 years and older; 6.9% were still studying at secondary school or university; the remaining portion was made up of persons in the household (2%), or possibly another status, such

117

R E P O R T O N T H E L I V I N G CO N D I T I O N S O F R O MA H O U S E H O L D S I N S LO VA K I A 2010

Graph 9.2 Structure of the Roma population 15+ years by economic status – comparison with 2005 (in %) 0

10

Students

9.3 6.9

Working

7.1

20

60

70

1.0 2.0 12.2 10.9 8.0 8.3

Old-age pension

Other (including OCD)

50

57.4 54.3

Parental or maternal leave

Disability pension

40

9.9

Unemployed At home

30

4.5 5.2

2005 2010

0.5 2.3

Question: What is your economic standing at the moment?

Note: OČD = caring for a household member.

as caring for a household member, long-term work disability, or serving a jail sentence and the like (2.3%).

In comparison with the year 2005 certain differences appeared in declared economic status, but they were so small that they cannot be definitively evaluated as statistically significant (Graph 9.2). First of all, the relative proportion of those working and those unemployed changed moderately: in 2010 more Roma age 15 years and older declared themselves to be working (by 2.8%) and fewer as unemployed (by approximately 3%) than in 2005. Those studying at secondary school and university recorded a drop (a decline of 2.4%) as did persons on maternity or parental leave (by 1.3%). In contrast, in comparison with five years ago, there was modest growth in those who declared themselves as being at home (by 1%), and the share of those with another economic status increased (by 1.8%).

The proportion of pensioners, both old-age and disability, remained approximately the same (8% old-age and about 5% disability pensioners).

As can be seen, overall and in the course of the last five years, such small differences are involved that it is dif-

118

ficult to assess them as any kind of shift in a hopeful or unfavourable direction. In relation to a social programme implemented for the purpose of supporting the inclusion of the Roma, growth in the share of working Roma, for example, would speak to their being a favourable impact, but it remains questionable whether the quality of employment or work performed also increased; a moderate decline of employment would also speak about the desired development, but they could also have shifted to statuses of economic inactivity (for example, be included among persons at home1 or another position), not directly among the working; in the context of an “aging“ trend of the Roma child population and growth in the category of pupils and students found in the total population (see Graph 3.10), a very unfavourable decline in those studying at the age of 15 years and more would appear in relation to the implemented programmes for support of education. It would be possible to mention more similar examples, but the small range of changes found, however, leaves them in the realm of hypothesis. However, the recorded difference and the type of research data are not

1 Here it is necessary to observe that the growth in the number and the share of persons at home in 2010 was also shown in the overall statistics for the Slovak labour market (see Boxes 9.1 and 9.3). As an analysis of labour statistics indicates, in the crisis years of 2009 and 2010 employment in Slovakia worsened, compared with 2008 the number working dropped and the number of unemployed increased, the quality of work also worsened expressed by the growth of seasonal labour and underemployment, that is, the involuntary shortening of the work-load, etc. (Filadelfiová, 2010b; Filadelfiová – Bútorová, 2011). With a comparison of year 2010 with 2005, which is the case of this comparison, trends indicated for the Roma part of the population are in accordance with the overall development for the Slovak Republic. And according to the overall statistics the number working moderately increased and the unemployed decreased, the number of persons at home increased, and in contrast from the preceding, the number of people on work disability due to illness grew significantly. The one trend which appears differently than for the entire Slovak population and different for the surveyed Roma population age 15+ years was recorded, unfortunately, for the category of those studying. While for Slovakia as a whole the number of men and mainly women studying grew, for the surveyed Roma population a drop occurred in this group, and did so despite the voluminous growth in this very type of the youngest age group.

R E P O R T O N T H E L I V I N G CO N D I T I O N S O F R O MA H O U S E H O L D S I N S LO VA K I A 2010

sufficient for coming to conclusions of this type. Overall, it’s more possible, upon comparison with the state five years ago in terms of economic standing, to evaluate the situation in 2010 as principally unchanged; which, however, given the number of programmes implemented targeted on support for employment or education of the Roma does not appear very favourably. Data would testify more about their minimal or no effect in the studied environment.

The study data on the declared economic activities signalled a certain association between connection to work activities and segregation on the basis of settlement type (Table 9.1). In the segregated part of the Roma population the share working was lower (only 7%), which was nearly half as much as for the Roma population living diffused (which reached 13.4%) and 3% less than those living separated (9.6%). In relation to the quantitative range of declared unemployed, this differed less among individual Roma environments – and was high also for Roma living diffused. In segregated environments the unemployed on the basis of self-reporting made up 56.6%; in separated 53.5% and among those living diffused 52.8% (a difference of not quite just 4% versus segregated). Differences between the three subsets of Roma population were also found for other economic positions. Roma living segregated had in comparison with the other two environments fewer old-age pensioners (6.5% versus 10.2% for separated and 8.2 for diffused) and a higher share of persons at home (3.7% versus 0.9% for separated and 1.6% for diffused).

According to the declared economic status of the Roma population age 15+ years and the structure for the economic activity as a whole it seems as if the chances to become employed, to find work, in segregated environments is the smallest. The proportion of working and

unemployed for the aggregate of economically active persons confirms this in more relief. Within segregated settlements the share of working to unemployed was 11.1% to 88.9%; in separated environments this was 15.3% to 84.7%; for the group of diffused 20.3% versus 79.7%. Meanwhile, only every tenth individual from all economically active persons in segregated Roma communities reported themselves as working, and among those living diffused this was every fifth person. But the proportion of unemployed on the labour force is very high even for Roma living diffused (nearly 80%). In comparison with the geographically close general population the proportion of working and unemployed was completely different – 85.9% working to 14.1% unemployed. Despite the same geographic environment, the chances of being unemployed is many times higher for Roma than for the general population. And living in segregated settlements reduces the chances even further.

The three compared Roma environments differed in declared economic statuses also upon monitoring women over the course of five years. As Graph 9.3 indicates, the greatest shift in the structure of positions defined in relation to the labour market occurred in those living in segregated communities. The drop in the share studying was most striking in segregated (and then separated) settlements, where it reached nearly 4%; more significantly than in other environments was that the representation here of persons drawing freely for the care of children showed a decline,2 together with those living diffused this environment also recorded a drop in declared unemployment. And then with some economic positions in segregated environments growth was evident? Aside from the partial increase in the share of those working (by approximately 3%; in diffused settlements

Table 9.1 Structure of Roma population age 15+ years by economic status and type of housing (in %) Segregated Students Working Unemployed At home Parental, maternal leave Old-age pension Disability pension Other (including OČD) Individuals 15+ total Share of working for economically active Share of unemployed for economically active Total economically active (working + unemployed)

Separated 6.5 7.0 56.6 3.7 11.4 6.5 5.6 2.5 100.0 11.1 88.9 100.0

Diffused 8.6 9.6 53.5 0.9 10.4 10.2 4.4 2.5 100.0 15.3 84.7 100.0

Total 5.6 13.4 52.8 1.6 11.0 8.2 5.6 1.9 100.0 20.3 79.7 100.0

6.9 9.9 54.3 2.0 10.9 8.3 5.2 2.3 100.0 15.6 84.4 100.0

Question: What is your economic standing at the moment?

Note: OČD = caring for a household member.

2 The study data, however, is not sufficient for a complete response to the questions, because this is a consequence of a drop in the birth-rate and because it is accompanied by possible loss of the claim to a parental social benefit.

119

R E P O R T O N T H E L I V I N G CO N D I T I O N S O F R O MA H O U S E H O L D S I N S LO VA K I A 2010

Graph 9.3 Roma population age 15+ years by economic status and type of settlement – comparison with the year 2005 (in %) 0

10

20

60.4 56.6

Segregated

0.9

3.7 14.8 11.4

5.7 6.5 3.6 5.6 0.5 2.5

Student

10.2 8.6

Working

8.8 9.6 55.1 53.5

Separated

Unemployed At home

0.9 0.9 11.8 10.4 8.4 10.2

Parental or maternal leave Old-age pension 4.3 4.4

Disability pension Other (including OČD)

0.5 2.5

7.5 5.6 8.2

Student Working

13.4 56.6 52.8

Unemployed

Diffused

At home

1.2 1.6 10.0 11.0

Parental or maternal leave

10.0 8.2

Old-age pension 5.3 5.6

Disability pension Other (including OČD)

1.2 1.9

Question: What is your economic standing at the moment?

Note: OČD = caring for a household member.

120

70

7.0

Parental or maternal leave

Other (including OČD)

60

3.8

Unemployed

Disability pension

50

6.5

Working

Old-age pension

40

10.3

Student

At home

30

2005 2010

R E P O R T O N T H E L I V I N G CO N D I T I O N S O F R O MA H O U S E H O L D S I N S LO VA K I A 2010

this was increased by 5%) here was multiple-times growth in the share of persons at home (up to 3.7% of all those surveyed age 15+ years), and in the overall structure of segregated settlements the proportion of disability pensioners and other economic statuses expanded moderately (each by approximately 2%).

Results indicate that it’s as if upon comparisons with the situation five years ago, change occurred most in segregated Roma communities, and involved predominately an unfavourable change (a relatively sharp drop in those studying and growth in persons at home, on a disability pension and other statuses). The one favourable trend consisted in a strengthening of those working and in a small share of unemployed, however, this could be only seemingly favourable, it does not have to correspond in the end with a shift from unemployed to working and it says nothing about the quality of the work defined by job security and social protection (see the following section). Also, even after growth, the share working in this environment is still very low– only 7%.

Whether such a structure of economic activity is the regional standard can be addressed by a comparison of the average values for the selected three types of Roma communities with the geographically close general population (Graph 9.4). The share of declared working and unemployed obtained for both groups was completely reversed: while for the surveyed Roma population the results showed 9.9% working to 54.3% unemployed, in the case of the geographically close general

population this was 44.7% working to 7.4% unemployed. Thus, despite the approximately equal conditions in the external environment, the resultant method of connecting to the labour market for the compared sets is diametrically different. Overall, more surveyed residents of the Roma communities (up to 64.2%) were placed in the labour force (i.e. among the economically active – working and unemployed together) than residents of the geographically close general population (52.1%). While nearly every other person from the general population was economically inactive, among residents of Roma communities this was only every third person.

A gigantic difference was also found for the category of old-age pensioners: in the Roma population they made up only 8.3%, but for the geographically close general population this was 29.3%. On the other hand, in the surveyed Roma population there was again more individuals on maternal or parental leave – by 7.2% (10.9% of them drew parental leave for care of a child versus 3.7% from the general population), as well as persons at home (2% versus 0.5%).Those studying had a higher representation in the geographically close general population (9.1% to 69%), despite the incomparable higher share of the youngest age group in the Roma communities. Disability pensioners moderately predominated on the side of residents of Roma communities (5.2% to 4.3%). Despite the geographically nearness, the structure by declared economic status was determined for the Roma and the general populations was found to be markedly different.

Graph 9.4 Structure of the Roma population age 15+ years by economic status – comparison with geographically close general population (in %) 0

10

60

54.3 7.4 2 0.5 10.9 3.7 8.3

Old-age pension

Other (including OČD)

50

44.7

Unemployed

Disability pension

40

9.9

Working

Parental or maternal leave

30

6.9 9.1

Students

At home

20

29.3 5.2 4.3 2.3 1.1

Question: What is your economic standing at the moment?

Note: OČD = caring for a household member.

Roma population age 15+ Geographically close general population age 15+

121

R E P O R T O N T H E L I V I N G CO N D I T I O N S O F R O MA H O U S E H O L D S I N S LO VA K I A 2010

Graph 9.5 Comparison of Roma men and women age 15+ by economic status (in %) 0

10

20

30

Working

6.1

70

62.8 45.9 0.1

4.0

1.5 20.1

Old-age pension

6.1

Disability pension

6.4 4.0

Other (including OČD)

60

13.8

Unemployed

Parental or maternal leave

50

7.4 6.5

Students

At home

40

10.6

1.8 2.8

Roma men 15+ Roma women 15+

Question: What is your economic standing at the moment?

Note: OČD = caring for a household member.

9.1.2. Differences in declared economic activities of Roma men and women As many studies from the last decade have documented, Slovak society as a whole has long displayed a great gender difference according to position on the labour market (for the whole context, see boxes 9.1 and 9.3; for more details, see: Filadelfiová, 2002, 2007; 2010a; Holubová, 2009, 2010; Tieňová..., 2008; Monitorovacia..., 2011). And as empirical data from this study has confirmed, the Roma population is not in this regard an exception. More the opposite – the differences between the individual types of economic (in)activity of women and men are still much deeper among the Roma (Graph 9.5).

From a relative comparison of Roma men and women by declared economic activity significant differences arise, which are related to economic activity, as well as some statuses of economic inactivity. The share of Roma men working was more than two-times higher than with Roma women. From the surveyed Roma women age 15+ years only 6.1% were identified as working, and from Roma men this was 13.8%. In the subset of Roma men the representation of unemployed was also stronger namely by nearly 20% (62.8% versus 45.9% for Roma women). On the other hand, there were in comparison with Roma men significantly more Roma women outside the labour market – economically active. Women

122

had a higher representation of old-age pensioners (on average 10.6% women to 6.1% men), at home (4% women to 0.1% men) and on maternity and parental leave (up to 20.1% of Roma women and only 1.5% of Roma men). The share studying was moderately higher on the side of men (7.4% to 6.5% women); equally also the share of disability pensioners (6.4% to 4% women).

A few more women declared another economic status (2.8% women and 1.8% men).

Roma women are thus incomparably more often than men on parental leave and at home and less are working as well as unemployed. In all 76.6% of Roma men were considered as economically active (i. e. working and unemployed together), and this was only 52% of Roma women (for context for the entire Slovak Republic, see more box 9.3). On average every other Roma woman is economically active while from Roma men three out of every four were economically active.

But as Graph 9.6 also shows, gender differences in economic activities show similar tendencies for the geographically close general population; however, they had a significantly smaller range. The geographically close general population showed the largest gender disproportion in the share of those working, which was 54.1% for men and only 36.1% for women.3 With the unemployed the disproportion was only small and to the disadvantage of men (8.4% of unemployed men to 6.4% of unemployed

3 Although it is not possible to compare the statistical data from Slovakia presented in box 9.1 with this study directly, since it involves different methodological approaches, in terms of context, a significant lagging behind the results for all of Slovakia is evident in them in the economic activities of the general population living in close proximity to Roma communities. This is probably a consequence of the older age structure of the population living in the geographic proximity of Roma communities as opposed to the average for Slovakia.

R E P O R T O N T H E L I V I N G CO N D I T I O N S O F R O MA H O U S E H O L D S I N S LO VA K I A 2010

Graph 9.6 Comparison of men and women age 15+ years for the geographically close general population by economic status (in %) 0

10

20

30

70

36.1 8.4 6.4

Unemployed 0

0.9

0.2 6.8 22.7

Old-age pension

35.3

3.9 4.7

Disability pension Other (including OČD)

60

54.1

Working

Parental or maternal leave

50

10.3 8.0

Students

At home

40

Men age 15+

0.2 1.8

Women age 15+

Question: What is your economic standing at the moment?

Note: OČD = caring for a household member.

women). In the overall structure on the basis of economic activity women living in the geographically close proximity to Roma communities had significantly more old-age pensioners than men (35.3% to 22.7%), which corresponds with the overall trend showing the feminisation of old age and the different conditions for a claim on a pension in the case of men and women in Slovakia, which has been gradually changing since 2004 (see Box 9.1). And fi-

nally, significantly more women than men in the geographically close general population were also on parental leave – 6.8% to 0.2%. Drawing leave for the care of a child is therefore in both groups living in close proximity almost exclusively an experience for women.

The total share of economically active persons (i. e. working and unemployed together) for the geographically close general population showed a large gender

Graph 9.7 Roma men age 15+ years by economic status – comparison with the geographically close general population of men (in %) 0

10 7.4

Students

Other (including OČD)

50

60

70

54.1 62.8 8.4 0.1 0 1.5 0.2 6.1

Old-age pension Disability pension

40

13.8

Unemployed

Parental or maternal leave

30

10.3

Working

At home

20

22.7 6.4 3.9 1.8 0.2

Question: What is your economic standing at the moment?

Note: OČD = caring for a household member.

Roma men age 15+ Men age 15+

123

R E P O R T O N T H E L I V I N G CO N D I T I O N S O F R O MA H O U S E H O L D S I N S LO VA K I A 2010

from the geographic proximity, but a large part of it remained unused – they end up largely as unemployed. It also seems as if the economic status of the general population was for men more uniform, less heterogeneous.

They work or are on an old-age pension or are preparing for a profession. Only a small part was unemployed and on a disability pension; the other economic statuses hardly apply as they were more isolated cases. The structure of Roma men is strikingly different – unemployment dominates and only a small part or working or preparing for a profession; only a small portion is on old-age pension, and the rest is distributed throughout all of the remaining position in relation to the labour market.

The structure of women from Roma communities and women from the geographically close proximity also differed significantly in terms of declared economic activity (Graph 9.8). A higher potential for economic activity was also found on the side of Roma women, although for both groups of women this was significantly smaller in comparison with men and with a smaller proportional difference. A total of 52% of Roma women and 42.5% of women from the geographically close general population were considered to be in the labour force; however for Roma women this remained largely unused.

The share of unemployed to working was for Roma women 45.9% to 6.1%, and in the case of women from the geographically close general population this was 6.4% unemployed to 36.1% working.

Approximately half of Roma women and nearly 60% of women from the general population were outside of economic activity. The differences were recorded with ma-

difference in part (62.5% of economically active men to 42.5% of women), but also a lagging behind the level of economic activity of the Roma population (in the case of men by 14.1% and in the case of women by 9.5%). In the Roma population the share of economically active is well higher – for men and women.

Differences in the declared economic status are recorded also with comparisons of Roma men and women individually, with men and women for the geographically close general population. From a comparison of men from the Roma and the general population (Graph 9.7) the largest differences appear in the category of working, unemployed and pensioners. While only 13.8% of Roma men were reported working, for men from the general population this was 54.1%; unemployed men was in the Roma population 62.8%, while only 8.4% of men from the geographically close general population.

Together 76.6% of Roma men and 62.5% of men from the geographically close general population were recorded as being economically active, which means a higher labour potential on the side of Roma men; in men from the geographically close general population the labour force was reduced primarily by the departure to old-age retirement. Old-age pensioners had in the general population of men a 22.7-percent share, while among Roma they made up only 6.1%. With parental leave, disability pensions and other economic status the prevalence was higher on the side of Roma men, the share studying was in contrast behind men from the general population.

The potential for work activities was clearly and significantly higher on the side of Roma men versus men

Graph 9.8 Roma women age 15+ years by economic status – comparison with the geographically close general population of women (in %) 0

10

6.1

Working Unemployed

124

50

60

36.1 45.9

4.0 0.9 20.1

6.8 10.6

Old-age pension

Other (including OČD)

40

6.4

Parental or maternal leave

Disability pension

30

6.5 8.0

Students

At home

20

4.0 4.7 2.8 1.8

Question: What is your economic standing at the moment?

Note: OČD = caring for a household member.

35.3 Roma women age 15+ Women age 15+

70

R E P O R T O N T H E L I V I N G CO N D I T I O N S O F R O MA H O U S E H O L D S I N S LO VA K I A 2010

Graph 9.9 Roma men age 15+ by economic status and type of settlement (in %) 0

10 7.0 9.8 5.1 12.1 12.4

Students Working

20

Parental or maternal leave Old-age pension Disability pension Other (including OČD)

40

50

60

70

80

17.3 67.7

Unemployed At home

30

60.8 60.1 0.3 0 0 1.2 1.3 2.1 3.8

8.5 5.7 5.9 4.9 8.6

2.1 2.3 1.2

Segregated Separated Diffused

Question: What is your economic standing at the moment?

Note: OČD = caring for a household member.

ternity and parental leave and with women at home, of which there were more from among Roma women. Some 20.1% or surveyed Roma women age 15+ years were on parental leave, while among women from the geographically close surroundings this was approximately one-third as much (6.8%); 4% of Roma were recorded as being at home and not quite 1% of women from the nearby surroundings. Obviously, the determined status followed in great measure from the age structure and the departure of women to old-age retirement: the share of old-age pensioners among the general population was more than three-times higher than with Roma women.

Equally as in the case of men, the number of women age 15+ years studying was also higher in the general population. Disability pensioners were also moderately more prevalent in women from the general population, while another economic status again occurred more often in Roma women.

As was shown, aside from the fact that many women are outside the realm of economically active on the labour market (they are pensioners or are providing home care), it’s not possible even to use those women who are active on labour force. This applies for both compared groups, but especially for Roma women. In a situation when less than one-fifth of Roma men making up the labour force and approximately one-tenth of the female work force are active on the labour market and such a state is long-term, it’s possible to speak about wasting existing labour potential

(regarding reasons and the specifics of unemployment see the following section below).

Similarly as for the entire Roma population age 15 and more years, upon tracking the subset of Roma men and women individually it was found that that the type of habitation moderately interferes in the level of work activity in both groups of sexes. Only 12.1% of men from segregated settlements were ranked among the working (12.4% from separated), from those living diffused this was 17.3% (Graph 9.9). Working women formed in the segregated subset only a minimal 2.5%, and among women from separated settlements this was 6.2% and from women living diffused 9.8% (Graph 9.10).

Thus, not quite 3% of surveyed Roma women age 15+ years living in segregated settlements had the status working, while among Roma women living diffused this was nearly one-tenth. Although the “labour” result of men and women is very, very low in all three compared Roma settlement types, it appears as if opportunities for work for Roma men and women living diffused were only moderately increased.

In relation to the other economic positions of Roma men, the data signalled a higher share of unemployed in segregated environments (68% versus 60% for diffused), from the economically inactive statuses fewer old-age pensioners in comparison with the other two types of settlements (not quite 4% versus 8% and 6%), and fewer disability pensioners – equally as

125

R E P O R T O N T H E L I V I N G CO N D I T I O N S O F R O MA H O U S E H O L D S I N S LO VA K I A 2010

Graph 9.10 Roma women age 15+ by economic status and type of settlement (in %) 0

10

20

2.5 Working

6.2

60

70

80

46.3 45.8 45.7 6.8 1.9 3.2 21.0 20.0 19.6

Parental or maternal leave 9.0

Old-age pension

Other (including OČD)

50

9.8

Unemployed

Disability pension

40

6.0 7.4 6.0

Students

At home

30

12.1 10.6

5.4 3.8 2.6 3.0 2.8 2.6

Segregated Separated Difffused

Question: What is your economic standing at the moment?

Note: OČD = caring for a household member.

with men living separated and different from men living diffused (5% and 6% versus 9% from diffused populations). The shares of the remaining economic statuses (at home, on parental leave and another position) were only minimally and moderately higher in the case of separated or segregated men.

Unlike with men, the mutual differences on the basis of settlement type were less significant for the surveyed Roma women, aside from the above-mentioned disproportion in the representation of working women.

The share of unemployed was for all three compared environments of Roma women approximately equal (46%), similarly as with the share of women on parental or maternity leave (around 20%), and the so-called other statuses (to 3%) and women studying (6 to 7%). Where a certain difference did appear, this was in pensioners and women at home. Old-age pensioners were the least among women in segregated settlements, and on the other hand this group of Roma women recorded the highest share of disability pensioners as well as the highest representation of women at home.

Despite the fact that gender differences from the viewpoint of economic standing are common on the Slovak labour market (see Box 9.1 to 9.3), in Roma environments this is even more exponential, and is also

126

so in comparison with women from the geographically close general population. Furthermore, spatial segregation also contributes to further deepening of such differences. In segregated environments Roma women hardly ever become involved in labour activities (according to this study, on the basis of self-reporting, not even 3%); they more often remain at home or are on a disability pension. Aside from general factors,4 here the stronger influence of cultural norms and expectations related to the role of men and women in a family and in society could be at work (see Box 9.4); in the case of an increase in the prevalence of disability pensioners (including a lower share of old-age pensioners) the data can show the more negative impacts of the poor quality of life in segregated settlements on the health of Roma women from this environment.

9.1.3. Work activities of the Roma population by type and economic activity in total As is presented at the start of this chapter (Graph 9.1), the group working was for the studied Roma population age 15 years and more very small, only 9.9% of the total set.

With a closer look at the type of work performed, full-time

4 For example, demographically (higher fertility, higher and earlier mortality of women and men, lower life expectancy), health (worse health status, higher sickness rate) and work (fewer job opportunities, unqualified work force).

R E P O R T O N T H E L I V I N G CO N D I T I O N S O F R O MA H O U S E H O L D S I N S LO VA K I A 2010

Graph 9.11 The structure of the working Roma population age 15+ by type of work activity – comparison with the geographically close general population (in %) 0 Self-employed, entrepreneur

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

0.8 5.9 6.8

Full-time employment

36.9

Part-time employment

0.5 1.6

Other economic activities

1.8 0.5

Roma population age 15+ Geographically close general population age 15+

Question: What is your economic standing at the moment?

Note: Only the group working (9.9% of the total Roma set and 44.7% of the general population age 15 + years).

employment predominated with 6.8%, followed by socalled other types of work defined as temporary or seasonal work with 1.8%; other types of work activities had only a minimal occurrence – self-employed and entrepreneurs 0.8% and part-time employment 0.5%. In comparison with the geographically close general population, despite the significantly lower overall share of working individuals (9.9% versus 44.7%), the Roma had more representation of the so-called other types of work activities, that is temporary and irregular work. These accounted for 1.8% in the Roma population and only 0.5% of the general population. Thus, from this disproportionately smaller group of working individuals, non-standard types of work are taken away in the case of the Roma set. At the same time this could involve jobs which do not have integrated the foundation pillars of work and social protection, like, for example, casual work, seasonal work, underemployment, forced self-employment (Kalleberg, 2009; van Berkel – Moller, 2002).

The type of work activities of the Roma population differed not only from the geographically close general population, but also again with the community on the basis of type of settlement (Table 9.2). While in the group

of those living segregated those with classic full-time employment had only a 3.8-percent share, in those living diffused this share was 10.2%. In the calculations for all of those working in the given group this meant that of all working Roma living diffused more than 75% had full-time work, of all of those working from segregated settlements not quite 70%, and of those working who lived in segregated settlements the share with full-time work was just over half (54%). Spatial segregation thus lowers not only the general availability of work, but also influences the accessibility of standard work, which in Slovakia always represents full-time work (for context see Box 9.2).

We pass now to a summary look at the economic activities on the basis of self-classification. And from this perspective the empirical data repeatedly confirmed the moderately more favourable structure of that part of the Roma population which is spatially integrated. The relative proportion of economically active and inactive here turned out to be most favourable (66.2% active to 33.8% inactive); the unemployed made up a smaller share of the economically active in this group than for the two non-integrated groups (52.8%), and among those working there

Table 9.2 Declared economic activities of the Roma population age 15+ years by type and type of settlement (in %) Segregated Trade licence, entrepreneur Full-time employment Part-time employment Other work activities Share of those working total Unemployed Share of economically active total Economically inactive Individuals 15+ total Question: What is your economic standing at the moment?

Separated 0.4 3.8 0.7 2.1 7.0 56.6 63.6 36.4 100.0

Diffused 1.6 6.6 0.5 0.9 9.6 53.5 63.1 36.9 100.0

Total 0.4 10.2 0.3 2.5 13.4 52.8 66.2 33.8 100.0

0.8 6.8 0.5 1.8 9.9 54.3 64.2 35.8 100.0

127

R E P O R T O N T H E L I V I N G CO N D I T I O N S O F R O MA H O U S E H O L D S I N S LO VA K I A 2010

Graph 9.12 Economic activities of the Roma population age 15+ years by type – comparison with the geographically close general population (in %) 0 Self-employed, entrepreneur

10

30

40

50

60

70

0.8 5.9 6.8

Full-time employment

36.9

Part-time employment

0.5 1.6

Other economic activities

1.8 0.5 9.9

Share of those working total Unemployed

20

44.7 54.3

7.4 64.2

Share of economically active

52.1 35.8

Economically inactive Roma population age 15+

47.9

Geographically close general population age 15+

Question: What is your economic standing at the moment?

were more with full-time employment (10.2% employed full-time of 13.4% working). Compared to them, Roma from segregated and separated settlements had a worse relative proportion between the economically active and inactive (moderately more inactive); for the entire labour force the unemployed shared a larger volume, and the resultant small group of those working in non-integrated environments was distinguished by higher incidence of nonstandard forms of work.

A comparison of the aggregate of economic activity of the surveyed Roma with the geographically close general population showed a different composition.

While the share of economically active (i.e. working and unemployed together) in the Roma population age 15 years and more was 64.2%, for the set representing the geographically close proximity this was only 52.1%.5 The rest then fell to the economically inactive: for the Roma population not quite 36% and for the general nearly 48%.

Of the total share of economically active Roma, however, the unemployed, who represented 54.3% of the entire Roma population age 15+ years, dominated to a decisive measure, while they made up only 7.4% of the geographically close general population. Disqualification from the labour market is thus literally enormous in the Roma population.

128

9.1.4. Comparison of declared economic activities by age and education It is obvious that biological age intervenes significantly in the economic activities in general, since several statuses are directly tied to a certain age group. Thus, for example the status studying is on one side of the age interval and old-age pensioners on the other, or possibly maternity or parental leave tied to the age of fertility. The view through individual age groups, however, can bring useful information also for the category of working or unemployed, not only for people outside of the labour market. Table 9.3 presents a reduced 6 structure of individual age groups on the basis of economic activity for selected subset of the surveyed individuals.

The most homogeneous structure in relation to economic activity naturally was in the group of children of pre-reproductive age (to 14 years); however, according to the empirical data it was not fully homogeneous. Unlike children from the geographically close general population, nearly 1% of Roma children were declared as being disabled or ill. Because this involved children age 6-14-years, that is, at the age of compulsory school attendance, but parents did not list them as pupils, this could signify that a portion of children from the health

5 The measure of economic activity for the Slovak Republic moved somewhere in the middle – on the edge of 58% in the year 2010 (for more see Boxes 9.1 and 9.3).

6 For a simpler view several statuses were excluded: children before primary school, pupils and students are in one category; all types of work activities were combined; likewise old-age pensioners, invalids and the ill; under the category “at home” are persons at home, on maternity or parental leave and those caring for a member of the household.

R E P O R T O N T H E L I V I N G CO N D I T I O N S O F R O MA H O U S E H O L D S I N S LO VA K I A 2010

disabled or seriously ill remain genuinely outside the educational system. Verification through responses to the question about education confirmed that children so assigned to school not only didn’t attend school now, but even in the past, and that parents as a reason for not attending school gave illness or health disablement of the child. From the viewpoint of type of settlement no

differences are evident – the share of such classified children was in all three Roma environments equal; the fact that among them were slightly more boys than girls could be a coincidence.

Although it does not involve large numbers,7 we still consider it necessary to emphasise this, so that this segment of the children’s population is not forgotten in pro-

Table 9.3 Declared economic activities of the Roma population by age groups – comparison of subsets and with the geographically close general population (in %) 0-14

15-24

25-34

35-44

45-54

55+

Segregated Children and studying Working Pensioners and the ill At home Unemployed

99.3 — 0.7 — —

23.5 3.6 1.5 18.3 53.1

— 9.0 4.0 26.9 60.2

— 11.8 2.2 13.2 72.8

— 5.7 14.3 15.2 64.8

— 4.3 81.4 1.4 12.9

Children and studying Working Pensioners and the ill At home Unemployed

99.4 — 0.6 — —

29.7 6.8 1.8 15.1 46.6

— 9.2 1.2 25.2 64.4

— 15.2 5.5 12.1 67.2

— 16.2 13.3 8.6 61.9

— 1.0 77.1 1.0 21.0

Children and studying Working Pensioners and the ill At home Unemployed

99.3 — 0.7 — —

19.9 13.8 2.6 23.0 40.7

— 13.5 3.2 20.6 62.7

— 15.6 5.0 7.8 71.6

— 17.2 18.0 8.2 56.6

— 1.4 77.5 1.4 19.7

100.0 — — — —

61.9 19.5 5.1 4.2 9.3

3.2 70.1 2.6 14.3 9.7

— 73.8 6.2 6.9 13.1

— 74.8 8.6 5.8 10.8

— 16.5 81.6 0.3 1.6

99.3 — 0.7 — —

24.5 8.0 2.0 18.7 46.8

— 10.4 2.9 24.5 62.2

— 14.3 4.3 11.1 70.4

— 13.3 15.4 10.5 60.8

— 2.0 78.5 1.2 18.3

99.6 — 0.4 — —

22.7 5.2 1.9 34.1 36.1

— 5.1 2.0 44.3 48.6

— 9.1 3.7 19.2 68.0

— 10.2 13.9 17.5 58.4

— — 87.1 1.5 11.4

99.1 — 0.9 — —

26.5 10.9 2.0 3.0 57.6

— 14.9 3.8 5.4 75.9

— 19.3 4.9 3.1 72.7

— 16.3 16.9 3.6 63.2

— 4.4 68.4 0.9 26.3

Separated

Diffused

Geographically close general population Children and studying Working Pensioners and the ill At home Unemployed Roma population total Children and studying Working Pensioners and the ill At home Unemployed Roma women Children and studying Working Pensioners and the ill At home Unemployed Roma men Children and studying Working Pensioners and the ill At home Unemployed

Explanation of categories: Children and studying = children, pupils and students; Working = self-employed and entrepreneurs, full- and part-time employed and other work activities; Pensioners and the ill = old-age pensioners, disability pensioners and the ill; At home = persons in the household, on maternity and parental leave and caring for a household member; Unemployed = unemployed.

Note: The age group for individual subsets together adds up to 100%.

129

R E P O R T O N T H E L I V I N G CO N D I T I O N S O F R O MA H O U S E H O L D S I N S LO VA K I A 2010

grammes and policies. For the quality of their life and equally even to the question about to what extent the family background and immediate environment of these children is capable (economically and from the viewpoint of skills needed) of providing them with adequate care for their overall spiritual and physical development, and whether from the side of institutions this does not involve the violation of their fundamental human (children‘s) rights, including the rights of children to an education.

The second youngest age group (15-24 years), unlike the more or less homogeneous children, appeared as more heterogeneous – all of the monitored economic statuses were represented in it. In the case of the Roma population age 15-24 years approximately one-quarter were classified among those studying, 8% were working, the share of ill and disabled in them increased to 2%, nearly 19% of them provided care at home, but the most were unemployed (46.8%). So that among those age 15-24 years the unemployed made up nearly half of the Roma population. And as was further shown, the structure of this youngest part of the productive Roma population differed significantly from the geographically close general population and differed also within the community on the basis of type of settlement and sex.

In comparison with the geographically close general population there was among Roma respondents age 1524 years only about two-fifths as many studying (only 24.5% versus 61.9% from the same age group of the general population) and two-fifths less working (8% versus 19.5%); on the other hand in the Roma subgroup persons providing care at home had a significantly higher representation (18.7% to 4.2%) as did the unemployed (46.8% to 9.3%). Young people age 15-24 years in the case of the Roma population had significantly fewer studying or working than in their “general” peers from the immediate surroundings; more often they cared for the family and significantly more often were unemployed.

A significant difference also appeared in the structure of young Roma men and women. Already from the 15-24 years age group more Roma men than women were working (10.9% to 5.2%) and unemployed (57.6% to 36.1%), among women age 15-24 years there was a disproportionately stronger representation of “carers for the family hearth”, that is, women on parental leave and at home (34.1% to 3%).

130

And the level of spatial exclusion likewise found its own reflection in the resultant structure of young population.

In the direction toward the segregated environment the share of unemployed increased (from 40.7% for those living diffused, through 46.6% among separated, to 53.1% with living in segregated settlements) and was mirrored by a drop in the representation of those working (from 13.8% to 6.8% in the separated and 3.6% in the segregated).

In a mutual comparison for different groups of the youngest productive age (15-24 years), a different reproductive behaviour of Roma and the geographically close general population is expressed in part, which already at this young age shifts a large portion of Roma residents (and primarily women) off the labour market – into the sphere of unpaid (women‘s) work at home.8 At the same time the lower measure of young people of Roma nationality remaining in the system of education is confirmed, which is subsequently reflected with great probability on the development of their further working careers or activities. The high share of unemployed already in this age group and at the same time the low share of those working point do the deep exclusion of the Roma population from the labour market, to the absence of any, or of suitable opportunities for employment, and signals also the possible ineffectiveness of existing employment policies for this target group. It’s not only that a large group of young people from Roma communities are unable to stay in the educational system, but already at a young age existing employment policies in the end result leave them outside of the labour force or labour market and force them into a substitute strategy for survival. Another influential factor which the obtained data point out is the worsening structure by economic activities with the level of spatial exclusion. Regardless whether the immediate reasons for the unfavourable economic structure (fewer local job opportunities, less willingness or ability to work, limited possibilities of choice between employment and home care, etc.), spatial separation, and mainly segregation, the resultant situation is still getting significantly worse. In all of the indicated point extensive interventions are needed in the interest of achieving a positive change.9 Transition to the older age group meant a significant shift in the proportions of individual statuses of economic activity and not only as a consequence of the biological

7 In the study 8 children were found with such a classification (ill or health disabled and outside of the educational system) from a total number of 854 children age 6-14 years; it can be assumed, however, that in reality there could be more.

8 The given type of study data does not allow in this association to speak further about the level of missed opportunities and unfulfilled life desires of Roma women, or about the measure of freedom of their decisions for early motherhood, as more specialised research studies have emphasised (Data on..., 2009). But what is certain is that with the creation of policies and instruments of support, however, the standpoint of human rights of women should not be forgotten.

9 We’ll name at least a few: prevention of early motherhood; searching for possibilities of harmonising early motherhood with work, so that it doesn’t mean the end of the working career of women; strengthening of Roma women in the interest of expanding space for free decisions about their own lives; utmost support for keeping young people in the educational system and improving their final result in terms of education achieved; broad efforts on the creation of local jobs; reappraisal of the suitability of instruments of support for employment in relation to the real life situation of this target group; to look for and create effective instruments working against spatial separation and segregation and the like.

R E P O R T O N T H E L I V I N G CO N D I T I O N S O F R O MA H O U S E H O L D S I N S LO VA K I A 2010

life cycle. So long as those studying were involved, the research of this category among the Roma population age 25-34 years did not record anyone at all, but in the general population they still made up just over 3%. The share of persons outside of economic activity, who are devoted to home care and nursing, for both compared groups populations culminated with the age 25-34 years; with the following older groups it gradually decreased. For the Roma population, however, this moved with each age category to significantly higher values (for example, 24.5% for the general and 44.3% for the Roma group age 25-34 years) and related primarily to women (44.3% of Roma women to 5.4% of Roma men age 2534 years with this type of economic standing).

The representation of those working likewise increased in both compared populations with an age and achieved the highest levels around age 44-45 years, from the viewpoint of volume, this involved gigantic differences. In the case of the Roma population the share of declared working grew with access to the 25-34 years group and with the age 24-44 years those working again declined (development from 8% in younger to 10.4 % and 14.3% in middle and 13.3 % and 2% in the older age groups). For the geographically close general population over the age of 25 years the share of working increased from 19.5% in the “youngest” up to 70.1% in the age 2534 years; and this high level is maintained and even improved in the middle age groups (to 74.8%); a more significant decline in those working took place only with those age 55 years and older – to 16.5%.

Changes in the share of unemployed with growing age had the exact opposite development and proportions than for the working; but for the Roma population their share in all age categories was incomparably higher. While for the group age 25-34 years the share of unemployed in the general population reached 9.7% and in the following two categories 13.1% and 10.8%, the growth in the share of unemployed for the Roma population jumped in the age 25-34 years group to 62.2%, and with the group age 35-44 years it increased even higher to 70.4%, and in the oldest groups ended up in a drop (first to 60.8% in the group age 45-54 years and older than 55 years to 18.3%). Directly proportional with a decline in the share of unemployed in the older groups, however, the proportion of those working did not increase, but connected predominately with the growth in disability pensioners and later old-age pensioners. In the group age 4554 years for the Roma population the share of pensioners and ill was nearly two-times higher in comparison with the general population: 15.4% versus 8.6%.

A comparison of the economic structure of the oldest age group of 55 years and more between the Roma and the general populations also brought a larger difference. For the Roma set there was significantly fewer working people in this age group (2% versus 16.5%) and moderately fewer pensioners and the ill (78.5% versus 81.6%); on the other hand an increase was found with them for older people with the status unemployed (18.3% to 1.6%), and also those at home (1.2% to 0.3%).

While the majority of those older than 55 years for the subset of general population was on a pension or still worked, among older Roma many were still declared as unemployed or at home.

Analysis of the individual age groups and their mutual comparison between the surveyed subsets allows the statement to be made that the development of economic activity or a working career in the case of the Roma population played a completely different role than in the general population and does so despite the geographical membership to a similar space. It’s as if the presented numbers tell the story of two fully different countries with a different level of development, not about “neighbours”. This suggests that the chances and the prerequisites in relation to successful exertion on the labour market are for both compared groups of citizens completely different and to the disadvantage of the Roma. On the basis of declared economic status the Roma work force remains practically throughout its entire life cycle in all age categories, predominately without any application in employment, and to an increased measure this applies for women and those in segregated environments.

The glimpse of declared economic activities by achieved level of education, which is presented in Table 9.4, also revealed several interesting associations. Generally, it is stated in the literature that a higher the education significantly improves the chance of employment (see references to the literature in the chapter introduction). The data obtained for the Roma and the general population10 confirmed the validity of this initial statement – the share of those working increased with education. But at the same time it was shown that education as a “lift” for successful placement on the labour market works a great deal more weakly in the case of the Roma population than in the geographically close general population.

Among Roma with an education lower than standard primary school11 only 5.6% were placed among the employed; with a standard primary school education and unfinished secondary school the share working grew to 9.8% and in the scope of additional education further to 26.3%; from secondary school students with a school-

10 In the interest of a more exact and more intense comparison of educational activities between the individual groups, education was specified for respondents with finished preparation for a profession and the age range set at 15-55 years. The setting of the age interval was an attempt to minimise the influence of old-age pensioners – in regard to the different age structure of the compared populations as well as an attempt to primarily analyse the productive part of the compared sets.

11 That is, special schools and an unfinished primary education.

131

R E P O R T O N T H E L I V I N G CO N D I T I O N S O F R O MA H O U S E H O L D S I N S LO VA K I A 2010

Table 9.4 Declared economic activity of the Roma population with a finished education age 15-55 years by category of education – comparison of the subsets and with the geographically close general population (in %) Less than standard primary school

Standard primary school and unfinished secondary school

Secondary school without a school-leaving certificate

Secondary school with school-leaving certificate and more

Segregated Working Pensioners and the ill At home Unemployed

3.7 10.4 21.5 64.4

7.9 3.3 19.4 69.4

17.3 2.6 20.0 60.1

28.6 — 28.6 42.8

Working Pensioners and the ill At home Unemployed

9.0 12.7 20.9 57.4

8.0 3.0 17.6 71.4

28.6 2.2 8.8 60.4

25.0 — 25.0 50.0

Working Pensioners and the ill At home Unemployed

3.4 14.6 20.2 61.8

13.4 5.7 17.7 63.2

31.0 2.0 15.0 52.0

47.1 5.9 11.8 35.3

12.5 56.3 12.5 18.7

57.5 15.2 12.1 15.2

65.4 6.3 8.2 20.1

81.6 2.4 9.8 6.2

5.6 12.3 20.9 61.2

9.8 4.0 18.2 67.9

26.3 2.3 14.3 57.1

37.5 3.1 18.8 40.6

Separated

Diffused

Geographically close general population Working Pensioners and the ill At home Unemployed Roma population total Working Pensioners and the ill At home Unemployed

Explanation of categories: Working = self-employed and entrepreneurs, full- and part-time employed and other work activities; Pensioners and the ill = old-age pensioners, disability pensioners and the ill; At home = persons in the household, on maternity and parental leave and caring for a household member; Unemployed = unemployed.

Note: The educational group for individual subsets together /adds up to 100%. The group of secondary schools with a school-leaving certificate and more had for the Roma population a very low representation (N = 35), the presented percentage shares by type of settlement are therefore only for orientation.

leaving certificate and higher education those working made up 37.5%. For the geographically close general population the share of those working increased much more intensively with a higher degree of education: from 12.5% with the lowest education to 57.5% with a primary education and 65.4% with a secondary vocational education up through 81.6% working among secondary school graduates and holders of a higher education.

At the same time the gigantic lag of the Roma population on the level of declared employment was valid in all educational groups. In the category of less than standard primary school this was approximately half as many working (a difference of 6.9%), for standard primary school and unfinished secondary school up to one-sixth the number (a difference of 47.7%), for vocational school two-fifths as many (a difference of 39.1%) and in the highest educational group represented by second-

132

ary school with a school-leaving certificate and higher levels of education also two-fifths as much (and a difference of 44.1%). The largest difference in representation of those working was thus in the standard primary school group (including unfinished secondary school) and with the highest education achieved represented by obtaining a school-leaving certificate or a higher degree.

While the fact that the set of general population had more university graduates in comparison with the Roma set could to a certain measure influence the difference in the representation of those working between the Roma and the general population with the secondary school and higher education,12 which could have an impact on the resultant employment, with a standard primary school education such a hidden factor drops out. But it generally applied that the proportion of those working was in the studied Roma set significantly smaller compared with

12 Independent comparison of secondary school students with a school-leaving certificate and university students as a special category didn’t make sense because in the case of the Roma the set this involved very small numbers; it was therefore excluded.

R E P O R T O N T H E L I V I N G CO N D I T I O N S O F R O MA H O U S E H O L D S I N S LO VA K I A 2010

the set from the geographically close general population for each of the four educational categories.

And where in the scope of individual degrees of education is the non-working included? To which economic position do they belong? According to the data obtained in the case of the Roma population the largest part is placed among the unemployed (with the exception of the highest education, around three-fifths). The unemployed were the most numerous group in all degrees of education. And this applied for all three compared types of settlements, although for those living diffused the chance for working with a vocational or a higher education grew.

For Roma with finished vocational school living diffused those working made up 31% and unemployed 52%, for those with finished vocational school from segregated communities the share of those working was only 17.3% and the share of unemployed was more than 60%. Approximately one-fifth of those surveyed in each educational category from the Roma set was at home or on parental leave, while in the educational groups of the general population persons at home were about half as many.

An interesting disproportion was shown with pensioners and the ill: from the general population age 15-55 years with an education on a lower level than standard primary school up to 56.3% where classified as pensioners or ill; from the same Roma group only 12.3% were so declared.

A similar difference was also for the standard primary school (15.2% to 4%) and vocational school (6.3% to 2.3% of pensioners and the ill).13 Analysis of empirical data showed that with higher achieved education employment of the Roma population grew, but this does not apply absolutely. Even a large portion of Roma with higher education remains unemployed anyway. Empirical data thus speaks for the hypothesis that even though jobs corresponding to qualifications are for individual educational groups available in a region, members of the general population are more likely to get them than a person of Roma nationality.

It follows overall from analysis of the data on declared economic status that the summary measure of economic activity is higher for the Roma population, but unemployment detracts profusely from it. Despite the geographic proximity, the difference in the declared economic activity of the Roma and general population is huge, and as is further shown, other measures used for defining the relation to the labour market confirmed this. Fewer studying, more disability pensioners, many times fewer old-age pensioners, a great deal more women at home, incomparably more unemployed, and

conversely incomparably fewer working – so appears in brief the difference in structure on the basis of economic activity between the Roma and the general population, despite the geographic proximity. Looking inward at the Roma population, the resulting structure by economic activity is influenced by the type of settlements based on spatial integration or exclusion. The share of the unemployed is high and the share working is low (and at the same time diametrically opposite from the general population 14) in all three compared Roma settlement types, with segregation, however, shifting still toward a worse result in terms of successful integration to the labour market. Furthermore, segregation on the basis of settlement type follows also for the type of work activities performed, which is shifting more toward non-standard forms of work (temporary, casual work, seasonal work and the like).

The already mentioned partial finding about the position of the Roma on the labour market call for initiatives and programmes focused on removing discrimination in the approach to employment. But they also advocate for introducing serious measures aimed against spatial segregation, because with segregation an already poor chance for work is reduced even further and increases the risk of precarious work. In the context of the findings for the individual age and education groups 15 initiatives and programmes are also obviously needed for strengthening the qualifications and other prerequisites of Roma women and men for employment. Gender differences in economic activities are significantly higher for the Roma population than for the geographically close general population. This could speak volumes about the significantly worse position of Roma women, about the deeper ingrown and broader activities of gender stereotypes and gender-based insensitive socialisation in the Roma environment. This also requires other types of programmes (see note no. 9).

9.2. General work experience of the roma population Declared current economic status tells about only one small part of the overall relation of the Roma population to the labour market and the placement and standing within it. One study devoted to the employment of Roma women and men points out, aside from the small work results on the labour market, also the problem of nonstandard forms of work signalling the weak or no social

13 But the number of respondents with a lower education than standard primary school was in the geographically close general population very small (a total of 23 individuals), which does not allow the underlying conclusions to be formulated.

14 The high unemployment of Roma for all types of settlements, which is diametrically dierent from the result for the general population from the same geographic surroundings, can signal the working and exertion of discriminatory practices and an unequal approach on the local labour markets for this group of citizens.

15 As also the ďŹ ndings presented in the previous chapter 8, which presented in more detail the educational structure of the Roma population.

133

R E P O R T O N T H E L I V I N G CO N D I T I O N S O F R O MA H O U S E H O L D S I N S LO VA K I A 2010

Table 9.5 Structure of the Roma population age 15+ years by experience with work activities during their life and type of settlement (in %) Segregated Yes No Don’t know, not given Individuals 15+ total

Separated 43.6 48.5 7.9 100.0

Diffused

Total

47.3 47.2 5.5 100.0

52.0 44.5 3.5 100.0

47.6 46.8 5.6 100.0

Question: Have you ever performed any full- or part-time paid work (employed or doing business) for at least 6 months?

protection and the poor working conditions (precariousness of work), which are spreading broadly in this very group, discusses the question of the depth of exclusion from the labour market, influential factors, etc. (At Risk..., 2005; Ivanov – Trusaliev, 2006; UNDP, 2002).

The previous section partially pointed out the presence of unstable forms of work and their higher occurrence among the Roma work force, even though from a distance it doesn’t capture all methods of “vulnerable” types of work and even all associations (for example, illegal or so-called “black work”). In relation to the depth of exclusion from the labour market there are several possibilities for how to approach measuring it.

One of the ways is the tracking of the length of the period of employment and its specifics; another is following the share of unemployed or the measure of unemployment in the individual age or education groups; still another is total experience with work activities and the development of a working career. In the study attention is partially paid to all three angles of view, at least in the position of independent variables. We’ll stop now and go into more details with the last mentioned possibilities; the following section is devoted to the overall experience with work activities and the beginning of a working career as well as the mutual relation with current economic position.

9.2.1. Experience of the Roma population age 15+ years with more permanent work The study about the living and working situation of Roma households and individuals as opposed to 2005 expanded regarding the question determining the experience with paid work at least one year in duration.

On the basis of the obtained responses the surveyed Roma set is divided into two approximately equal parts (Table 9.5).

A total of 47.6% of the entire Roma set had performed paid full-time or part-time work (including entrepreneurial activities) at least 6 months in duration and 46,8% at the time of the study did not have such experience (no information was obtained for 5.6% of those surveyed). Although according to the current declared economic status those working made up only 9.9% of the entire Roma population age 15 years and more,16 nearly five-time more of those surveyed had had at least a halfyear’s experience with more permanent work in the course of their life. At the same time the data in the table confirms that on the basis of settlement type the total life experience with paid work significantly declined with segregation. While 52% of those living diffused had more lasting experience with paid work, from segregated areas this was only 43.6% (nearly 10% less).

Graph 9.13 Structure of the Roma population age 15+ years by experience with work activities during their life – comparison with the geographically close general population (in %) 0

10

20

40

50

60

70

80

90

47.6

Yes

78.3 46.8

No Don’t know, not given

30

15.0 5.6 6.7

Roma population Geographically close general population

Question: Have you ever performed any full- or part-time paid work (employed or doing business) for at least 6 months?

134

16 And according to the Sample Survey methodology for the labour force, 15% of the Roma population age 15 years and more were currently employed (see Table 9.8).

R E P O R T O N T H E L I V I N G CO N D I T I O N S O F R O MA H O U S E H O L D S I N S LO VA K I A 2010

Graph 9.14 Experience of the Roma population age 15+ years with finished vocational preparation with work activities during lifetime – comparison with the subsets and with the geographically close general population (in%) 0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

90

100

49.3

Segregated Separated

52.6

Diffused

56.3

Geographically close general population

90.2

Roma population total

52.7

Roma men Roma women

80

60.8 44.7

Question: Have you ever performed any full- or part-time paid work (employed or doing business) for at least 6 months?

Note: Only for respondents age 15+ years with finished vocational preparation who responded to the questions (share of non-respondents was 3.3%).

And in comparison with the geographically close general population (Graph 9.13) the limited standard work experience of the Roma was lower by nearly 30%. From the Roma population 46.8% had still never had paid work for longer than half a year and from the geographically close general population only 15%; while the share of non-respondents for both compared sets was approximately equal (around 6 %).

9.2.2. Experience with more permanent work by current economic status How does experience with more permanent work differ by current economic status, or which groups of citizens have not yet worked for a period longer than half a year?

Upon searching for the answers to these questions we limit our attention only on the group with finished preparation for a profession and those for whom it was possible to obtain information.

After exclusion of non-respondents and respondents age 15 and more who are still preparing for a profession,17 the level of experience with work of duration six months and longer appears as follows. The group with most of such defined work experience were those members of the Roma population age 15+ years with finished preparation for a profession who lived diffused (56.3%), toward those living segregated the work experience decreased to less than half for segregated (49.3%); the average for the Roma population was nearly 40% lower than was the work experience of the geographically close general population (52.7% for the Roma population to 90.2% for the general); the difference between Roma women and men was also very striking – among Roma women only 44.7% had during their life had experience with working for six months and more and among Roma men this was 60.8%.

The share of respondents with work experience lasting at least six months was different with the individual statuses for current economic activity and also differed

17 For completeness here we recall that the structure of age 15 years and older respondents, who are still preparing for a profession (attending school), was for the Roma set significantly different than the set from the geographically close general population. Among Roma age 15+ years, who were still attending school, the most were age 15 years (41.6%), and then those age 16 years (28.2%), 17-year olds made up only 18.1% and those age 18 years and older only 12,1 %; in contrast among those studying of age 15 years and older in the geographically close general population, only 17.9% were age 15 years and 12.8% were age 16 years, while 17-year olds made up 10.2% of them and nearly 60% were students age 18 years and older(59,1 %).

The opposite idea through individual age years by type of school attended tells of these great differences. Of 15-year old Roma pupils and students, 85.5% attended primary school and only 14. % went to a vocational school or another secondary school (at the same time only 38.8% of 15-years old primary school pupils in the 9th grade, the remaining 61.2% attended eighth to the fifth class); the ratio of primary and secondary school was for the group age 15 years from the general population 64.3% of pupils from primary school to 35.7% of students from a secondary school. Of the 16-year olds for the subset of the general population no one was still attending primary school, among 16-year old Roma preparing for a profession 46.2% were still in primary school (at the same time they attended the 8th to the 5th class), the remaining 54.8% were being educated at secondary school (69.6% of them attended a vocational school and only 30.4% a secondary school with a school-leaving certificate). Among 17-year old Roma youths, no pupils from secondary school were found, but the share of students in vocational schools, however, made up 57% of them.

The majority of those age 15+ years and studying from among the Roma population was thus at primary school (at age 15 and 16 years), or at a vocational school, secondary school with a school-leaving certificate university formed only a very small share in the surveyed set.

135

R E P O R T O N T H E L I V I N G CO N D I T I O N S O F R O MA H O U S E H O L D S I N S LO VA K I A 2010

Graph 9.15 Experience of the Roma population age 15+ years with finished vocational preparation with work activities during lifetime by current economic status – comparison with the geographically close general population (in%) 0

20

40

60

80

100 100.0 98.0 97.9 99.7

Self-employed, entrepreneur Full-time employment

90.9 92.9

Part-time employment 79.5 75.0

Other work activities 50.0

Unemployed

82.5 34.3

At home Parental leave, maternity leave

120

66.7

14.4

85.7 75.7

Old-age pension

83.9

48.2

Disability pension

60.6 Roma population age 15+

Geographically close general population age 15+

Question: Have you ever performed any full- or part-time paid work (employed or doing business) for at least 6 months?

Note: Only for respondents age 15+ years with finished vocational preparation who responded to the questions (share of non-respondents was 3.3%).

136

in comparison with the general population. While with those working of a different type the occurrence of experience with more permanent employment was high and the differences between the general and the Roma population was not great, with the economically inactive groups, such as those on childcare leave, at home, but also with the unemployed, experience with work was markedly reduced and the differences versus the general population grew significantly.

Those working in a standard understanding (i. e. fulltime employees or the self-employed and entrepreneurs) had the most respondents experienced with more permanent work, which was nearly 100 percent; the remaining was probably made up of beginners on the labour market (involving a first job lasting less than 6 months). Among those currently employed in parttime work more than 90% had sometime previously worked longer than a half year; the remaining 10% had never worked for a continuous period longer than half a year. Experience with more permanent work dropped significantly with respondents who reported so-called other work activities (casual or seasonal work and the like).

Less than 80% of these had experience with more permanent employment, for the remaining 20% currently performing temporary or unstable work in their overall working career was so far a permanent state.

With the changeover to the economically inactive groups, the experience of the Roma population with more

permanent employment dropped significantly, which deepened the overall lagging behind the geographically close general population. A notably large difference was found among them and the unemployed, but also with persons at home, on parental leave or pensioners.

From the Roma population age 15+ years with finished vocational preparation, which was currently declared as unemployed, only half had experience with some paid work lasting six months or longer, while among the unemployed in the general population this was 82.5%. Thus, nearly half of the currently unemployed Roma had sometime in their life worked in paid employment lasting a half-year or longer; the other half had no such experience. Among unemployed members of the general population a much smaller share of people (only 17.5%) had no experience with working for six months or longer. With a comparison of persons at home only 34.3% of the whole Roma set had more permanent work experience, but for the general population this was 66.7%. Thus, from Roma respondents who in the study were considered as a “person in the household” (to a predominate measure this involved women), only about onethird had sometime had work lasting a half-year or longer, while for persons in the household from the general population this was as high as two-thirds.

A still greater difference appeared with maternity and parental leave: from the Roma population drawing leave for child care only 14.4% had sometime in life worked longer

R E P O R T O N T H E L I V I N G CO N D I T I O N S O F R O MA H O U S E H O L D S I N S LO VA K I A 2010

than half a year, while from the general population this was 85.7%. But by contrast – two-thirds of predominately Roma women went on parental leave without previous longer work experience, and from women in the geographically close general population this is between one-tenth and one-fifty.18 The reason for the large differences in the level of work experience with paid employment with persons on maternity or parental leave is probably the earlier parenthood of the Roma population, often immediately after completing school, as well as connecting parental leave without the possibility of being employed.

In connection with the small share of more permanent work experience among Roma women (mainly) drawing maternity or parental leave, attempts at conditioning state family benefits (specifically a parental benefit) on previous work activities and participation in the insurance system for this group of population appears minimally as potential discriminatory. Since this doesn’t involve an insurance benefit, but a state grant, an attempt to condition its payment with previous work activities is clearly leading toward the limitation of state support of parenthood and those groups of residents, which are dis-

tinguished by their reproductive behaviour, characterised by early parenthood, rapidly occurring childbirths one after another and higher birth-rate (Debrecéniová – Filadelfiová – Maďarová, 2010). Furthermore, for a situation when this group of the population of Slovakia remains outside of labour activities and has few job opportunities often through no fault of their own (structural settings pushing broader groups of the Roma population from active connection to the labour market).

An opposite view is also possible over the entire experience with working activities and current economic standing. Specifically this involves a look at the representation of individual economic statuses in the part of the population which has at sometime work lasting longer than six months. As Graph 9.16 shows, of those Roma citizens who had such experience with paid work, 55.4% were currently unemployed; from the general population this was only 7.7% (Graph 9.17). Despite the experience with paid work during their lifetime, there were in the Roma population at the time of the research significantly more persons unemployed than in the case of the geographically close general population.

Graph 9.16 Structure of the population age 15+ years with experience with work activities during their lifetime by current economic status – Roma population with finished vocational preparation (in%)

Graph 9.17 Structure of the population age 15+ years with experience with work activities during their lifetime by current economic status – geographically close general population with finished vocational preparation (in%)

1.8 2.5

1.1 3.0

5.2

7.1

13.9 1.0

12.8 3.0

29.4

3.2 1.2

45.2 3.9 0.3

55.4

7.7 0.4 1.9

Self-employed, entrepreneur Full-time employment Part-time employment Other economic activities Unemployed

At home Parental leave, maternity leave Old-age pension Disability pension Other

Note: Only for the Roma population age 15+ years with work experience during their lifetime (47.6%).

Self-employed, entrepreneur Full-time employment Part-time employment Other economic activities Unemployed

At home Parental leave, maternity leave Old-age pension Disability pension Other

Note: Only for the general population age 15+ years with work experience during their lifetime (78.3%).

18 Let’s recall that the model of starting parenthood and founding a family directly after finishing education without any previous work experience was also the case for the majority of women in Slovakia before 1989 (Bútorová et al., 2008; Filadelfiová, 2005a, 2010c). In the Roma population the insufficient opportunities to work also limit “pre-reproductive” work experience.

137

R E P O R T O N T H E L I V I N G CO N D I T I O N S O F R O MA H O U S E H O L D S I N S LO VA K I A 2010

Graph 9.18 Employment, unemployment and economic activities by overall work experience of the Roma population (in %) Has experience with work lasting at least 6 months Doesn’t have experience with work lasting at least 6 months 100% 90.0

90%

81.6

80% 70%

62.4

60%

54.2 45.8

50% 40% 30%

26.9 18.4

20% 10%

4.6

0% Measure of employment

Measure of unemployment

Measure of economic activity

Outside the labour market

Question: Have you ever performed any full- or part-time paid work (employed or doing business) for at least 6 months?

Note: The presented measures according to the methods of the Labour Force Survey (VZPS).

With the share of those working the relative proportions were reversed: from the Roma population with finished vocational preparation age 15 years and more who had at least six-months work experience in their lifetime at the time of the study 19.7% were ranked among the working; in the general population 54.6% were so ranked. This means that despite past experience with paid work, Roma women and men remain significantly more often outside of work activities and with a status of unemployed.

On the basis of overall work experience during a lifetime general indicators of economic activity and employment or unemployment of the Roma population age 15+ years with finished vocational preparation also differed significantly. While among those who in their lifetime worked for a period of at least 6 months, the measure of economic activity was on the level of 81.6%, for Roma respondents without such experience this was only 45.8%.

In addition, then, only 18.4% of those who had a certain experience with more permanent employment in their lifetime were outside the labour market at the time of the study, and the share of persons outside the labour market among respondents without the experience of more permanent work was 54.2%.

In regard to the measure of employment defined by working at least one hour in the previous week for a wage or some other remuneration,19 this group achieved 26.9%

138

for the group of Roma experienced with more permanent work and for the group without experience only 4.6%. This was the reverse with the measure of unemployment – it was significantly higher for the Roma population without experience with work activities lasting at least a half-year (90% versus 62.4%). The standard measure of economic activities also ended up higher for the group of work-experienced Roma population; on the other hand, there were a great deal more respondents in the group outside the labour market who did not have any experience with more permanent employment. A “touch” of more permanent employment or entrepreneurship during a lifetime significantly improves the chances of the Roma population to find be employed on the labour market.

9.2.3. Work experience during a lifetime by age and education As Graph 9.19 shows, the level of experience with work activities lasting at least six months varies by age, while among the Roma and general populations a rather significant difference in trends was recorded. In general it applies that the level of work experience with employment or entrepreneurship lasting at least half a year logically increases with increasing age. The difference between the Roma and the geographically close general population is also stable

19 The methodology of a Sample Survey of the labour force – for more details see the following chapter.

R E P O R T O N T H E L I V I N G CO N D I T I O N S O F R O MA H O U S E H O L D S I N S LO VA K I A 2010

Graph 9.19 Experience of the Roma population age 15-64 with more permanent work activities during their lifetime by age – comparison with the geographically close general population (in %) 0

20

40

60

80

100

120

17.5

15-24 years

29.3 38.3

25-34 years

91.0 65.2

35-44 years

95.5 82.0

45-54 years

96.5 83.0

55-64 years

90.4 Roma population

Geographically close general population

Question: Have you ever performed any full- or part-time paid work (employed or doing business) for at least 6 months?

– the share of more permanent work experiences is smaller in each age group for the Roma population. But while for the general population the volume of work experiences differed significantly with the youngest age group (a less than 30% share) and in all other age categories achieved more than 90%, in the case of the Roma population this is the opposite – the growth of those experiences with work with age is a great deal slower and less intensive.

Only 17.5% of the Roma population age 15-24 years had sometime performed paid work for at least 6 months. With the age group 25-34 years the share increased, but only to 38.3%, and in the older age group of 35-44 years further to 65.2%. And in the two oldest age groups those with work experience obtained 80%.

While more than 90% of those older than 25 years in the general population had experienced at least a half-year’s work, for the Roma population of the middle age category a significant lagging appeared. Among the Roma population age 25-34 years only 38.3% had previously worked for at least a half-year, while in the general population this was 91%. Or stated otherwise: while from the general population age 25-34 years 9% of those surveyed had still not had a job lasting at least 6 months, in this same category for the Roma population the figure was 61.7%. Among Roma representing the 35-44 years age group 35% still had not experienced paid work lasting at least half a year, and among the geographically close general population this was less than 5%.

Graph 9.20 Experience of the Roma population age 15-64 years with more permanent work activities during their lifetime by age and type of settlement (in %) 0

10 9.9

15-24 years

25-34 years

35-44 years

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Segregated

14.9 26.9

Separated 38.2 35.2 41.8

Diffused

59.4

68.9 68.6 78.2 85.7 82.0

45-54 years

55-64 years

75.5

Question: Have you ever performed any full- or part-time paid work (employed or doing business) for at least 6 months?

86.4 86.4

139

R E P O R T O N T H E L I V I N G CO N D I T I O N S O F R O MA H O U S E H O L D S I N S LO VA K I A 2010

graphically close general population, but had incomparably smaller values.20 But where the gender gap at the level of the overall work experience of the Roma population grew, this was upon considering the type of settlement. With the exception of the youngest age group the gender gap in work experience decreased significantly in segregated environments: while in segregated environments the longer term work experience of Roma women lagged behind men by 30% with the 25-34 years age group, in separated settlements this was only 14% and with those living diffused by 13%. And similar growth in the gender gap in the direction of segregated environments was found also for the other age groups of Roma women and men (Table 9.6).

A different level of experience with more permanent work activities appeared also within the Roma population. On the basis of type of settlement (Graph 9.20) Roma living diffused had the most work experience, and those in segregated settlements work experience diminished. And the largest disproportion appears for the youngest age group: among Roma age 15-24 -years living in segregated communities not quite 10% reported work experience lasting at least half a year, while with separated communities their share grew to 15%; however, for those living diffused this was 26.9%. The segregated Roma environment showed not only the smallest current work experience, but also showed the least total experience with more stable paid work.

Graph 9.21 Experience of the Roma population age 15-64 years with more permanent work activities during their lifetime by age and sex (in %) 0 15-24 years 25-34 years

10

20

30

40

50

60

21.1

70

80

90

100

Roma men age 15-64

14.1

Roma women age 15-64

49.2 26.0

35-44 years 45-54 years 55-64 years

72.7 57.6 89.8 74.1 93.4 73.5

Question: Have you ever performed any full- or part-time paid work (employed or doing business) for at least 6 months?

Differences within the Roma population are also expressed on the basis of sex, and again in all age categories (Graph 9.21). According to expectations Roma women had significantly less experience with more permanent employment or another form of paid work than men. The largest difference was recorded in the 25-34 years age group: only 26% of Roma women from this age group had sometimes been employed in work lasting at least 6 months, while for Roma men this was nearly twice as high (49.2%). Work experience also differed between women and men in older groups, where the difference was 15-20% to the disadvantage of Roma women. The smallest gender disproportion occurred in the youngest age group – for the 15-24 age interval the difference was to the disadvantage of women by only 7% (21.1% of the youngest men with work experience and 14.1% among the youngest women).

A gender difference in the measure of overall work experience during a lifetime also rose for the geo-

140

In relation to the youngest age group, the share of experience with longer term work grew here for Roma men and women with spatial integration. But the largest gender gap was also for those living diffused. This is probably the result primarily of the overall low experience with longer term employment in segregated settlements, and not only for Roma women but for men, too.

In addition to age the overall work experience with more permanent employment also associated with the degree of achieved education: with increasing education, its level sharply rose. The growth of the share of individuals who during their lifetime at some point performed paid work for at least six months grew for the Roma population from 43% with those lower than a primary education and 50.8% in the group with a standard primary education, to 77.7% for secondary school students without a school-leaving certificate and 83.8% for the group of education (Graph 9.22). While in the Roma pop-

20 For example, the largest dierence appeared in women and men age from the 25-34 years age group, where 92.2 of men and 89.7% of women had experience with more permanent work. In other age groups the dierence was even smaller.

R E P O R T O N T H E L I V I N G CO N D I T I O N S O F R O MA H O U S E H O L D S I N S LO VA K I A 2010

Table 9.6 Experience of Roma women and men age 15-64 years with more permanent work activities in their lifetime by age and type of housing (in %) Segregated

Separated

Diffused

Total

15-24 years Men Women

11.7 8.2

14.3 15.9

37.2 17.7

21.1 14.1

Men Women

51.9 21.8

46.3 22.0

48.7 35.1

49.2 26.0

Men Women

79.4 59.4

66.3 52.4

74.3 62.1

72.7 57.6

Men Women

86.3 70.0

96.5 72.9

86.2 78.1

89.8 74.1

Men Women

85.7 67.9

96.9 76.5

95.7 76.2

93.4 73.5

25-34 years

35-44 years

45-54 years

55-64 years

Question: Have you ever performed any full- or part-time paid work (employed or doing business) for at least 6 months?

ulation the lower degrees of education the representation of those with work experience was half or less, for the higher educated this was more than three-quarters.

Among Roma with a primary education, which represented the most numerous educational group, half had still never had paid work which lasted at least half a year.

Experience with more permanent paid work also grew with degree of education for the geographically close general population. Already from the category defined by standard primary school, it had a much higher value in comparison with the results achieved by the Roma population.

With a primary education the lag on the side of the Roma was 36%, with secondary school without a school-leaving certificate this was 14% and with a secondary school and higher education a 10% difference.21 A comparison of individual groups of education by more permanent work experience during one’s lifetime was also better for the general population – the share of work experienced was higher here. Not even a higher education then is able to completely wipe out the difference in work activities of the Roma and the general population, even if they live in a geographically close environment.

Graph 9.22 Overall work experience of the Roma population by achieved level of education – comparison with the geographically close general population (in %) 0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

43.0

Lower than standard primary school

26.1 50.8

Standard primary school and unfinished secondary school Secondary school without a school-leaving certificate (Secondary vocational school) Secondary school with a schoolleaving certificate and more

86.8 77.7 92.1 83.9 93.9 Roma population

Geographically close general population

Question: Have you ever performed any full- or part-time paid work (employed or doing business) for at least 6 months?

Note: Without responses “I don’t know” (82 non-respondents from a total of 2,677 respondents, which is approximately 3.3%). The number for the category “lower than primary school” was for the geographically close general population very small (n = 23)

21 The only educational group in which the share of those experienced with work was the opposite – more experience on the side of the Roma population – was the group with the lower than primary school education. This group, however, for the general population had only a very small number (n = 23), therefore it is problematic to generalise from this.

141

R E P O R T O N T H E L I V I N G CO N D I T I O N S O F R O MA H O U S E H O L D S I N S LO VA K I A 2010

Graph 9.23 Average age of start of first job by age group – comparison of the Roma and the geographically close general population with work experience (in years) 16

16.5

17

17.5

18

18.5

19

19.5

20

20.5

18.16

15-24 years

19.14 18.96

25-34 years

19.88 18.66

35-44 years

19.02 18.72 18.85

45-54 years

18.95

55-64 years

18.59 17.40

65+ years

18.45 Roma population

Geographically close general population

Question: How old were you when you began to work your first job or do business?

Note: Only for individuals 15+ with work experience during their lifetime (for the Roma population this was 47.6% and for the general population 78.3%).

9.2.4. Average age of first entry into the labour market For those respondents who did have during their lifetime experience with more permanent paid work, their age of entry to their first employment or the start of their doing business was surveyed. On average for the Roma population this age was 18.66 year and for the geographically close general population 18.96 years. In the overall view, a larger difference was not found, but one was found with a comparison of the individual age categories (Graph 9.23).

The average difference on the level of one year and more was in the oldest age category (age 65 years and older), and then with the youngest age groups to 34 years.

Roma of older and younger age started their first job sooner than representatives of the general population, which is in accordance with earlier preparation for a vocation for the Roma part of the population – fewer continue on in studies at secondary school and university (see Chapter 8). If we compare the resultant average age for start of the first job in the two youngest age groups of the Roma population with the assumed age of finishing education at the primary school level, which is around 16 years, this signals the existence of a relatively long time period between the completion of education and the start of first employment.22 Data indicates that it’s as if members of the Roma nationality must wait for their first

142

employment a great deal longer than representatives of the geographically close general population.

This is also confirmed by a look at the average age for start of first job by completed education (Graph 9.24). Measured values of average age of entry onto the labour market for the Roma subset significantly exceeded the average age for the general population in all categories of education, aside from the highest. This signifies that Roma with lower degrees of achieved education waited for their first job opportunity on average a great deal longer than representatives of the general population of the same education.23 In the case of a secondary school education with a school-leaving certificate and higher the average age of entry of the Roma onto the labour market can be higher as a consequence that for the general population there were in this group more holders of university degrees (they prepared longer for a profession).

If at the conclusion we should summarise the overall work experience, empirical data confirms that more stable employment or entrepreneurship is for the Roma population a great deal less accessible than for the geographically close general population. At the same time this signals that the largest difference between them is with the middle-age groups. The huge gaps in a comparison with the geographically close general population in the middleage groups allow the hypothesis to be stated that more permanent job opportunities were for the Roma population more accessible with those who finished their vocational

22 Let’s recall that here we are analysing only the part of both surveyed sets which had during their lifetime experience with more permanent work; a large part did not get such longer term employment at all.

23 Although possible later or postponed entry to mandatory education, which occurs more often in the Roma population, could play a certain role here, it’s not very probably that it would reduce the overall average difference.

R E P O R T O N T H E L I V I N G CO N D I T I O N S O F R O MA H O U S E H O L D S I N S LO VA K I A 2010

Graph 9.24 Average age of start of first job by education – comparison of the Roma and the geographically close general population with work experience (in years) 16

16.5

17

17.5

18

18.5

19

19.5

20

20.5

19.59

Less than standard primary school

17.50

Standard primary school and unfinished secondary school Secondary school without a school-leaving certificate (Secondary vocational school) Secondary school with a schoolleaving certificate and more

18.16 17.86 18.80 18.17 19.45 19.84 Roma population

Geographically close general population

Question: How old were you when you began to work your first job or do business?

Note: Only for individuals 15+ with work experience during their lifetime (for the Roma population this was 47.6% and for the general population 78.3%).

preparation still prior to 1990 (45-year olds and older), than for those who entered onto the labour market after this period (especially 25-34-year olds). It also showed that exclusion on the basis of habitation is very closely tied with the depth of exclusion from the labour market. Work experience with more permanent employment during one’s lifetime was notably lower in the segregated environment, particularly with Roma women. A higher education increases the probability of more permanent work, not unconditionally; in all educational groups the Roma population is lagging in more permanent work experience behind the general population.

ment, temporary, casual work or seasonal work, among the working are also included those helping members of the household entrepreneurs, who do not receive any remuneration for their activities, as well as professional members of armed units. As working are also considered those persons who have a job but did not work during the monitored week due to illness, holiday, training, bad weather, as a consequence of a strike and lockout; with the exception of persons on long-term unpaid leave and persons on parental leave (Selected..., 2011, pg. 5).

9.3.1. Performing at least one hour of work per week

9.3. The roma population and the labour market by labour force survey methodology:24 standing and dependencies The survey of Roma households tracked, in addition to economic activities on the basis of declared status, all basic indicators needed for defining the relation to the labour market by the methodology of sample surveying of the labour force. In the surveys all persons age 15 and more who in the followed (reference) weeks performed at least one hour of work for a wage, payment or work for obtaining some form of profit were considered as working, including persons working abroad. At the same time this can involve full-time or shorter employ-

As follows from the presented definition of those working, the foundation for determining of this category are two questions in a questionnaire. One is focused on the performing of work lasting for at least one hour in the course of the previous week, without regard to the form of employment or contract, but for the purpose of obtaining a work remuneration or profit, including helping with household businesses. The second question defines more exactly the position of the working by expanding by those individuals who have employment but in the referenced period for different reasons did not work for even an hour.25 According to the responses to the first question (Graph 9.25) a total of 13% of the surveyed Roma population age 15+ years in the reference week worked at

24 The Labour Force Survey (VZPS) has been running continuously in Slovakia since 1993, it was included into the system of state statistical surveys on the basis of recommendations of the International Labour Organisation (ILO) and the Statistical Office of the EU (Eurostat) according to the sample of similar surveys in other countries. Full harmonisation of the surveys with EU regulations relating to VZPS was provided by the Statistical Office of the Slovak Republic from 2003. The surveying is carried out quarterly, the basis is the random selection of flats covering all districts of Slovakia; the sample includes 10,250 flats, which represents approximately 0.6% of the entire number of permanently inhabited flats. Two types of questionnaires are filled out in the selected households: one on the structure of the household and the other is filled out by all members age 15 years and older (for more about the survey, see: Selected..., 2011).

143

R E P O R T O N T H E L I V I N G CO N D I T I O N S O F R O MA H O U S E H O L D S I N S LO VA K I A 2010

Graph 9.25 Structure of the Roma population age 15+ years by working at least 1 hour per week in the public sphere (in %)

7.8

13.0

79.2

Yes

No

Don’t know, didn’t say

Question: Did you work during the previous week at least 1 hour of any type of work for a wage, payment, other type of remuneration or with the purpose of gaining profit (also the sale of scratch tickets or other products, help in a garden or with building), or helped in the fields, in the garden or at a business belonging to a member of your household (do not take activation work into consideration)?

Note: The number of the Roma population age 15+ years represented n = 2,160 individuals.

least one hour, more than three-quarters (79.2%) of the set did not perform such activities, and the remaining 7.8% did not respond to the question. In comparison with the self-categorisation among those working on the basis of declared economic status the share of those individuals who worked at least one hour outside of the

household increased moderately. Only 9.9% of the relevant Roma population gave the status working, which is approximately 3% less (see section 9.1). Thus, respondents did not consider every job for remuneration or for a household business as sufficiently qualifying to consider themselves as working.

As in many previous indicators associated with the labour market, with the performance of work at least one hour per week, it also applies that its share was very low in all three environments and with segregation on the basis of settlement type it decreased moderately.

As follows from Table 9.7, for the subset of Roma living diffused the share of persons age 15+ years who worked minimally one hour in the public sphere was nearly 15%; in the case of those living segregated it dropped to 10.7%.26 The presented range of performed work for the Roma population was gain in comparison with the geographically close general population significantly smaller. In contrast to the presented 13%, this was on a level of 44.4% for the set of the general population; 47.8% of them had not done even one hour of work in the public sphere during the previous week; the share of nonrespondents was for both sets the same.

Classification on the basis of declared economic status showed that work during the previous week in a volume of at least one hour was given predominately by those respondents who were identified as working; among the economically inactive work activity so defined was very low – in both the Roma and the general population (Graph 9.27). From a mutual comparison of the Roma and general populations a significantly higher involvement in work among the general

Table 9.7 Structure of the Roma population age 15+ by work at least 1 hour per week in the public sphere and type of settlement (in %) Segregated Yes No Don’t know, didn’t say Individuals total

Separated 10.7 78.1 11.3 100.0

Diffused 13.4 78.5 8.0 100.0

Total 14.8 81.2 4.1 100.0

13.0 79.2 7.8 100.0

Question: Did you work during the previous week at least 1 hour of any type of work for a wage, payment, other type of remuneration or with the purpose of gaining profit (also the sale of scratch tickets or other products, help in a garden or with building), or helped in the fields, in the garden or at a business belonging to a member of your household (do not take activation work into consideration)?

Note: The number of the Roma population age 15+ years represented n = 2,160 individuals.

144

25 The question used was as follows: “Did you work during the previous week at least 1 hour of any type of work for a wage, payment, other type of remuneration or with the purpose of gaining profit (also the sale of scratch tickets or other products, help in a garden or with building), or helped in the fields, in the garden or at a business belonging to a member of your household (do not take activation work into consideration)?”Thus, from those who gave a negative response, interviewers asked a second question: “Despite the fact that during the previous week you did not do any paid work for at least 1 hour, are you employed (entrepreneur, self-employed), in which you were only temporarily absent and again that you’ll return to? (Possible reasons for absence: illness, maternity leave, treatment of a family member, holiday, strike, work lockout, not customers, training, bad weather; parental, long-term leave and activation work do not belong here)?” The number of positive replies to the second question was only minimal (44 in the relevant subset of the Roma population and 13 in the geographically close general population).

26 After the exclusion of individuals from whom it was not possible to get a reply, the shares of those working at least one hour for individual settlement types was as follows: 12% segregated, 14.6% separated and 15.4% living diffused.

R E P O R T O N T H E L I V I N G CO N D I T I O N S O F R O MA H O U S E H O L D S I N S LO VA K I A 2010

Graph 9.26 Structure of the Roma population age 15+ by work at least 1 hour per week in the public sphere – comparison with the geographically close general population (in %) 0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

13.0

Yes

44.4 79.2

No

47.8 7.8 7.8

Don’t know, didn’t say

Roma population age 15+

Geographically close general population age 15+

Question: Did you work during the previous week at least 1 hour of any type of work for a wage, payment, other type of remuneration or with the purpose of gaining profit (also the sale of scratch tickets or other products, help in a garden or with building), or helped in the fields, in the garden or at a business belonging to a member of your household (do not take activation work into consideration)?

Note: The number of the Roma population age 15+ years represented n = 2,160 individuals; the number of the same geographically close general population n = 892.

emerged in nearly all statuses of economic activity, with the exception of employees and persons at home. While 5.4% of disability pensioners in the general population worked at least one hour in the reference week, among the Roma disability pensioners this was only 1.8%. Similarly, this was also the case with old-age pensioners (3.2% to 1.1%), those on parental leave (3.2% to 1.5%) and the unemployed (9.5% to 6.3%). The largest difference appeared in the group which was identified with

other economic activities (brigade work, seasonal work, etc.), where representatives of the Roma population lagged in the level of work performed by 16%, and then for the group of self-employed and entrepreneurs, in which the Roma lagged behind by nearly 10% in terms of volume. So that even with this view on work activity it is as if for the Roma population paid work was less accessible and was so without regard to position on the labour market or outside of it. Represen-

Graph 9.27 Work of the Roma population age 15+ of at least 1 hour per week in the public sphere by declared economic status – comparison with the geographically close general population (in %) 0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

81.8 78.6

Part-time employment 59.0

Other economic activities

75.0 6.3 9.5

Unemployed

Old-age pension Disability pension

98.0

93.9 91.8

Full-time employment

Parental leave, maternity leave

100

88.9

Self-employed, entrepreneur

At home

90

2.3 0.0 1.5 3.3 1.1 3.2 1.8 5.4

Roma population age 15+ Geographically close general population age 15+

Question: Did you work during the previous week at least 1 hour of any type of work for a wage, payment, other type of remuneration or with the purpose of gaining profit (also the sale of scratch tickets or other products, help in a garden or with building), or helped in the fields, in the garden or at a business belonging to a member of your household (do not take activation work into consideration)?

Note: The number of the Roma population age 15+ years represented n = 2,160 individuals; the number of the same geographically close general population n = 892.

145

R E P O R T O N T H E L I V I N G CO N D I T I O N S O F R O MA H O U S E H O L D S I N S LO VA K I A 2010

Graph 9.28 Comparison of Roma men and women age 15+ years by working at least 1 hour per week in the public sphere (in %) 0 Yes

10

20

30

40

50

70

80

90

17.8 8.2 75.6

No Don’t know, didn’t say

60

82.9 6.6 8.9 Roma men 15+

Roma women 15+

Question: Did you work during the previous week at least 1 hour of any type of work for a wage, payment, other type of remuneration or with the purpose of gaining profit (also the sale of scratch tickets or other products, help in a garden or with building), or helped in the fields, in the garden or at a business belonging to a member of your household (do not take activation work into consideration)?

Note: The number of the Roma population age 15+ years represented n = 2,160 individuals.

tation of work involvement of Roma through the form of at least one hour was, despite the geographic proximity, lower for the group of disability and old-age pensioners and the unemployed, as well as for individuals working on a trade license or entrepreneurs or those performing seasonal or brigade work.

As expected, the empirical data captured a relatively large gap in the level of work activity between Roma men and women. While 17.8% of Roma men age 15+ years had worked at least one hour on average, among women this was just under half as many – only 8.2%.27 Roma women gave a negative response more often in regard to working an hour; also, there was more among them who didn’t want or were unable to answer the question.

Analysis also confirmed the relatively large gender gap for the geographically close general population, but this moved at significantly higher values: some 51.3% of men and 38.1% of women age 15+ years worked during the previous week at least one hour. The involvement in work of women is generally much lower in comparison with men; in the case of the Roma population, however, despite the close proximity, both genders were incomparably smaller versus the general population.

146

9.3.2. The measure of employment, unemployment and economic activity using the Labour Force Survey (VZPS) methodology For calculation of the basic measure of those relevant from the viewpoint of position on the labour market and the share of persons outside of it, the group working defined by working at least one hour for a week was adjusted by those who did not work even one hour, but still had work and didn’t work due to illness, a strike, a lockout and the like.28 The measure of employment is then calculated according to the sample: the number working divided by the total number of persons of the given age definition times 100.29 Table 9.8 provides a look at the so-defined measures of employment for individual compared sets of the Roma and the general populations and for different defined age groups, as well as in comparison with other indicators and declared employment and unemployment.

The measure of employment counted for the Roma population age 15 years and older was on average 15%.

Such a result for the Roma set differed internally by type of settlement (13.1% segregated, 15.5% separated and 16.4% diffused) and differed significantly from the

27 Since in the previous series of surveys of Roma households in 2005 involvement with work was measured in a different way (a differently worded question), it is not possible to compare it directly with data from year 2010. Only for an approximation: in 2005, 15.8% of Roma men and 6.7% of Roma women reported work outside the household. With calculations of involvement in work for household management and for a member of the household, men had an employment figure of 33.4% and women 22.9%.

28 For the Roma set this meant an increase by 44 individuals and for the general population by 13 individuals.

29 The delimitation of other groups defined in relation to the labour market is as follows: Unemployed are all persons age 15+ years (or a different age range), who at present fulfil three conditions: 1. in the monitored week they did not have any paid work; 2. they are actively looking for work or have found work and await the start of employment; 3. are capable or want to find work (they do not belong among the economically inactive and those who do not want to work). These persons can be, but do not have to be, registered at the labour office as unemployed.

All persons of a given age rage who belong among the working or the unemployed are considered to be economically active citizens (the labour force).

Economically inactive citizens (persons outside the labour market) are all persons age 15+ years (or a different age range), who are not economically active. This involves persons who are in the monitored week without work because they are preparing for a vocation, are old-age or disability pensioners, on parental leave, caring for the household and the like and who are for the given (or other) reasons not actively looking for employment. Those who do not want to work are also included here.

R E P O R T O N T H E L I V I N G CO N D I T I O N S O F R O MA H O U S E H O L D S I N S LO VA K I A 2010

level of employment of the geographically close general population, which achieved a value of 45.9%.30 With a narrowing of the age interval through the form of shifting the age boundary from the end of productive

age in the direction of productivity, the measure of employment for the general population grew significantly, while in the Roma population it grew only very moderately. Thus, for the general population the measure of em-

Table 9.8 Comparison of different measures of employment and unemployment for individual surveyed groups (in %)

Declared employment 15+ years 15-64 years 15-55 years 15-24 years 25-54 years 55-64 years Employment according to VZPS 15+ years 15-64 years 15-55 years 15-24 years 25-54 years 55-64 years Declared unemployment 15+ years 15-64 years 15-55 years 15-24 years 25-54 years 55-64 years Declared unemployment 15+years 15-64 years 15-55 years 15-24 years 25-54 years 55-64 years Unemployment according to VZPS 15+ years 15-64 years 15-55 years 15-24 years 25-54 years 55-64 years Measure of economic activity 15+ years 15-64 years 15-55 years 15-24 years 25-54 years 55-64 years Outside labour market 15+ years 15-64 years 15-55 years 15-24 years 25-54 years 55-64 years

Roma population Geographically close general population Segregated Separated Diffused Total Share of working in the entire set 7.0 9.6 13.4 9.9 44.7 7.3 10.1 14.0 10.4 54.2 7.5 10.9 14.7 11.0 61.4 3.6 6.8 13.8 8.0 19.5 9.0 13.2 15.3 12.5 72.8 6.0 1.4 2.3 3.0 30.9 Adjusted share of working (worked 1 hr.+) for the entire population 13.1 15.5 16.4 15.0 45.9 13.5 16.3 16.9 15.5 55.1 13.8 16.7 17.8 16.1 61.3 8.1 9.1 17.1 11.4 20.5 16.3 20.9 18.3 18.5 72.8 10.0 10.0 2.3 7.9 35.5 As a share of unemployed for the entire set 56.6 53.5 52.7 54.3 7.4 58.3 56.1 54.9 56.4 9.0 61.1 59.0 56.5 58.9 10.4 53.1 46.6 40.8 46.8 9.3 65.2 64.9 63.9 64.7 11.1 18.0 31.4 31.8 27.4 3.1 As a share of unemployed from the declared labour force 88.9 84.7 79.7 84.4 14.1 88.9 84.7 79.7 84.4 14.2 89.1 84.4 79.4 84.3 14.5 93.7 87.2 74.8 85.4 32.3 87.8 83.1 80.7 83.5 13.2 75.0 95.6 93.3 90.0 9.1 Share of unemployed in the labour force 75.9 72.1 71.5 73.1 9.9 75.9 72.1 71.7 73.2 10.0 76.5 72.9 71.4 73.5 10.3 81.0 77.3 63.0 73.5 21.2 75.3 71.2 73.5 73.3 9.6 50.0 63.2 92.3 69.0 6.2 Share of economically active (working + unemployed) for entire population 54.3 55.7 57.6 55.8 50.9 55.9 58.4 59.7 57.9 61.2 58.5 61.5 62.1 60.7 68.3 42.4 40.2 46.2 42.9 26.0 66.0 72.6 69.3 69.3 80.6 20.0 27.1 29.6 25.6 37.8 As a % of the entire population 45.7 44.3 42.5 44.2 49.1 44.1 41.6 40.3 42.1 38.8 41.5 38.5 37.9 39.3 31.6 57.6 59.8 53.8 57.1 74.0 34.1 27.4 30.7 30.7 19.4 80.0 72.9 70.5 74.4 62.2

Note: Working including those who did not work even 1 hour, but who have work (they didn’t work due to illness, strike, lockout and the like).

147

R E P O R T O N T H E L I V I N G CO N D I T I O N S O F R O MA H O U S E H O L D S I N S LO VA K I A 2010

ployment grew from 45.9% with age 15+ years to 55.1% for the group age 15-64 years and to 61.3% for the group age 15-55 years; in the case of the Roma population with the shift to the group age 15-64 years the measure of employment increased from 15% to 15.5% and subsequently to age 15-55 years to 16.1%. While with the general population the exclusion of those older than 64 years meant an increase in employment by 10 points and after exclusion of those age 55 years by an additional 6 points, for the Roma population, the narrowing of the age interval meant growth in the measure of employment by only 0.5 point (for the group age 15-64 years) and further by only 0.6 points (for the group age 15-55 years). The difference is the differently represented old-age pensioners and the unemployed in both compared groups. Since there are a great deal fewer old-age pensioners in the Roma population and a great many more unemployed, the exclusion of the oldest age groups the measure of employment counted as a share of all Roma individuals of the given age group hardly changed at all. Conversely, in the general population each shortening of the age interval means the exclusion of a large group of economically inactive persons, and at the same time from the viewpoint of economic activity a more homogeneous basic set. This is also confirmed by a look at the change in the measure of economic activities31 in Table 9.8, in whose value for the general population increased for the group age 15-55 years as opposed to the group defined as age 15+ years by 17 points, while for the Roma this was only 5 points.

In the table the measure of employment of the youngest, middle-age and oldest age groups are also compared. The highest value is found in the middle age group defined as age 25-54 years, while at the same time the largest difference versus the geographically close general population also appears here. The measure of employment of Roma age 25-54 years achieved a level of 18.5% (in segregated areas only 16.3%), for the same group of the general population this was 72.8%.32 From Roma age 25-54 years not quite one-fifth was employed or worked at least one hour outside the household, and from the geographically close general population this was nearly three-quarters. Thus, there is a giant gap here (by 54.3 points, or a four-fold difference), which is repeatedly confirmed by the different chances of the Roma population for finding paid work, namely while taking into account local or regional conditions.

148

And this gigantic disproportion persisted with the comparison of the youngest and the oldest groups. In the age group from 15-24 years the measure of employment was in the Roma set 11.4% and for the general population it was 20.5%; among Roma age 55-64 years those working only made up 7.9%, while in this same group from the general population the figure was still 35.5%.

It was thus confirmed that the declared employment for all compared age groups was lower for the Roma population according to the VZPS methodology.33 This means that the part of those Roma individuals who subjectively perceived themselves as not working, worked in the monitored week at least one hour for a wage or some other form of profit. Overall the difference was measured at about 5%, and was highest for those living segregated or separated. It is interesting that in the general population the disproportion was minimal: declared employment and the measure of employment using the VZPS method were nearly identical for all of the defined age groups. This could signal a significantly higher occurrence of different types of random work opportunities with symptoms of precarious or illegal work on the side of the Roma population, when they are called from the surroundings by individuals or natural persons to work, but more permanent jobs remains inaccessible for them; furthermore, this is why they are classified as other economic statuses rather than the status working, or more often to the unemployed.

In relation to unemployment, this emerged as very high for the Roma population even on the basis of calculation founded on the absence of work combined with the willingness and capability of working and with active searching for work (regarding the VZPS methodology, see Note 29). The measure of unemployment as the share of unemployed for the entire number of economically active persons (the labour force) then achieved for the Roma population age 15+ years on average 73.1% (the most for the subset living segregated – 75.9%). With a narrowing of the age interval for the initial group to the 15-64 years interval or the 15-55 years interval, the measure of unemployment of the Roma almost didn’t change at all. The calculated measure of unemployment of the Roma population is more principally different than the declared unemployment. Declared unemployment as a share of the whole relevant population emerged significantly lower (for age 15 years and older 54.3%; high-

30 But as can be seen from the data presented in Box 9.3, the measure of employment found for the geographically close general population also lagged behind the Slovak-wide average – the measure of employment in 2010 for the whole population age 15+ years achieved 50.5%. Here regional factors probably step into the picture – employment in marginalised regions and districts of Slovakia which often overlap with areas with Roma communities, is a great deal lower (Falťan et al., 2004).

31 The measure of economic activity as in the percentages expressed share of economically active citizens (working an unemployed) in a certain age group from all citizens of the same age group (Selected..., 2011, pg. 7).

32 Let us recall that in comparison with the overall average for Slovakia the geographically close general population also achieved a smaller measure of employment: for the group age 25-54 years the average measure of employment in 2010 was 76%.

33 A similar principle, but in the opposite direction, also applies with a comparison of unemployment – declared unemployment is higher than the measure of unemployment using the VZPS method.

R E P O R T O N T H E L I V I N G CO N D I T I O N S O F R O MA H O U S E H O L D S I N S LO VA K I A 2010

est in the case of segregated 56.6%) and declared unemployment as a share of the labour force again a great deal higher (for age 15 years and older 79.7%; the highest for segregated 88.9%).

For the general population a completely different picture of unemployed was generated: the calculated measure of unemployment of the population age 15+ years had a value of 9.9%, which is less than one-seventh of the Roma figure; with a narrowing of the age interval, unlike the difference from the measure of unemployment and equally as with the Roma population, this changed only a little; it differed very little in comparison with declared unemployment (declared unemployment as a share of the overall relevant population was 7.4% and as a share of the declared labour force 14.7%).

From the mutual relations of the calculated and declared unemployment figures, it follows that a large group of the Roma population which self-reported a status of unemployed was not included among the unemployed on the basis of the VZPS methodology founded on the fulfilment of three conditions (presented in Note 29). For the general population from the geographically close general population the agreement between the presented two measures is significantly higher – the calculated and self-reported unemployment are more in agreement.

As further follows from Table 9.8, the measure of unemployment was very high already in the youngest age group of 15-24 years, and ultimately the highest in comparison with the middle and oldest generation. This applied for both compared populations but on a very different level. With the youngest Roma it achieved on average 73.5% and it roughly held this level through the middle generation and moderately declined on with the oldest age group of 55-64 years (to 69%). The youngest members of the geographically close general population showed a measure of unemployment of 21.2%, thus less than onethird that of their Roma peers; for the middle generation a drop by 10% and in the oldest generation still more – to 6.2%. The huge gap in unemployment between the Roma and the geographically close general population is stable according to age and persists in all monitored age categories. Exclusion from the labour market, more exactly from active inclusion to the labour market, is not only high for the Roma, but, it seems permanent.

Although the measure of unemployment in the Roma population changed according to the type of settlement for almost all of the presented age groups (it grew with gradual spatial exclusion and the highest level was found among those living segregated), the largest difference was for the youngest groups: in segregated settlements this was 81%, in separated it dropped to 77.3% and for those living diffused 63%. This means that three-fifth of those living diffused, more than three-quarters separated and up to four-fifths segre-

gated young Roma age 15-24 years are unemployed.

Such high unemployment among the young Roma population can be considered as an alarming finding, which demands immediate and systematic intervention.

If already at the start of their working life the majority belong among the unemployed, there is a great probability that in their subsequent life phases they will not overcome exclusion from the labour market, at least a predominate share of them.

All of the connections mentioned with the existing indicators from the field of the labour market apply to a full measure also for the measure of economic activity and its opposite – the share of persons outside the labour market. The measure of economic activity as a share the economically active (working and unemployed) for the whole of the given basic population achieved for the Roma population age 15 + years on average 55.8%, which was approximately 5% more than for the geographically close general population. With a diverse initial age group for the basic calculation the measure of economic activity, more exactly with its narrowing by the economically inactive, the resultant level changes – for the Roma population again only moderately and for the general population more significantly.

In the Roma population, upon narrowing the age interval to 15-64 years the measure of economic activity increased to 57.9% and for the age group 15-55 years to 60.7%. The measure of economic activity of the general population age 15+ years was approximately 51%, but for the group age 15-64 years it was more than 61% and for the 15-55 years interval more than 68%. The larger the specification for a productive generation, the higher the economic activity is. Restricting the age interval from 15+ years to 15-55 years increased the measure of economic activity of the Roma population by approximately 5%; in the case of the general population this was nearly 18%.

Although the economically active from the entire population age 15+ years is larger in the Roma population (56% economically active and the remaining 44% outside of the labour market) than within the general population (51% economically active and the remaining 49% outside the labour market), after restricting to the productive population age 15-55 years the proportions reversed and for this age interval the economically active have a higher share for the general population. From the geographically close general population age 15-55 years, 7 out of 10 persons belonged among the economically active (and the remaining three were outside the labour market), for the Roma population age 15-55 years this was 6 people from 10 (the remaining four were outside the labour market).

By productive age the middle generation has the highest measure of economic activity: for the group age 25-54 years for the Roma population it approached 70 % and for the general population exceeded 80%. The

149

R E P O R T O N T H E L I V I N G CO N D I T I O N S O F R O MA H O U S E H O L D S I N S LO VA K I A 2010

Table 9.9 Overview of basic measures in relation to the labour market by sex – comparison of Roma and the geographically close general population (in %)

Employment according to VZPS 15+ years 15-64 years 15-55 years 15-24 years 25-54 years 55-64 years Unemployment according to VZPS 15+ years 15-64 years 15-55 years 15-24 years 25-54 years 55-64 years Measure of economic activity 15+ years 15-64 years 15-55 years 15-24 years 25-54 years 55-64 years Outside the labour market 15+ years 15-64 years 15-55 years 15-24 years 25-54 years 55-64 years

Roma population Geographically close general population Men Women Men Women Adjusted share of working (worked 1 hr.+) for the entire population 19.5 10.5 52.7 39.6 20.1 11.0 61.2 49.1 20.7 11.4 65.1 57.5 15.2 7.7 23.3 16.7 23.4 13.4 78.5 67.4 11.5 4.7 49.4 23.7 Share of unemployed in the labour force 71.9 75.1 10.4 9.3 72.0 75.1 10.4 9.5 72.3 75.5 11.1 9.3 73.4 73.3 26.1 10.0 71.8 75.7 9.7 9.6 69.0 69.2 4.9 8.3 Share of economically active (working + unemployed) in the whole population 69.6 42.1 58.8 43.7 71.9 44.0 68.3 54.2 74.7 46.5 73.2 63.4 57.1 28.9 31.5 18.6 83.0 55.1 86.9 74.5 37.1 15.2 51.9 25.9 As a % of the whole population 30.4 57.9 41.2 56.3 28.1 56.0 31.7 45.8 25.3 53.5 26.8 36.6 42.9 71.2 68.5 81.5 17.0 44.9 13.1 25.4 62.9 84.8 48.1 74.1

Note: For the whole of the Slovak Republic in 2010 average values were as follows: measure of employment for men age 15+ years 58.2% and women 43.4%; measure of employment for men age 15-64 years 65.2% and for women 52.3%; measure of unemployment of men age 15+ years 14.2% and women 14.6%; measure of economic activity of men age 67.8% and women 50.8%; men outside the labour market 32.2 % and women 49.2 %.

150

higher measure of economic activity on the side of the general population persisted also with a comparison of the oldest generation age 55-64 years (37.8% general versus 25.6% Roma), with the youngest generation the ratio reversed– economically active achieved a higher level for the Roma population (43% Roma to 26% general).

The mentioned differences between the Roma and the general population within the three basic generations follow in part from the significantly fewer Roma studying, which shifts a large group of young people onto the labour market (even though without successful incorporation, that is among the unemployed), as well as the on average earlier and more common parenthood, which thus excludes a large group, primarily Roma women, from the labour market – they are at home or on parental leave (see Table 9.9).

In terms of the type of settlement the measure of economic activity is lowest (and reciprocally the highest share of people outside of the labour market) for Roma living segregated and this is so for all of the monitored age categories. The total share of the labour force (economically

active) was for the Roma population age 15+ years more than 54% and nearly 46% were outside the labour market; for those living diffused this was 58% active to 42% of people outside the labour market. Among young Roma age 15-24 years the ratio of the labour force and people outside the labour market for the segregated settlements was 42% to 58% and for diffused was 46% to 56%.

But as we can see, the differences between segregated and diffused Roma residents are not large. It can be deduced from this, that the situation of the Roma population from the perspective of standing on the labour market is in all three compared environments bad and exceptionally different from the general population – geographically close and overall. Such a result of measuring signals a different relation to the labour market and its actors regarding the Roma labour force. And perhaps even in contrast – it points out the different relation, conditions and chances of the Roma population in regard to the labour market and employment. After weighing equalities of the geographic proximity it indicates: 1) the functioning of the discriminatory conditions and ex-

R E P O R T O N T H E L I V I N G CO N D I T I O N S O F R O MA H O U S E H O L D S I N S LO VA K I A 2010

pectations in regard to the Roma population with “providers” of jobs and in the course of selected processes for them; 2) the weaker disposition and prerequisites of the Roma labour force in relation to offers on the labour market (, educational, qualifications, family or personally).

9.3.3. Employment and unemployment: influential factors What influences the success or failure of the Roma population on the labour market? Many domestic and foreign studies from the fields of social sciences and economics have been devoted in recent years to the working, or achieved result of the Roma population on the labour market. The majority are in agreement and remain by the stated low qualification and education of this part of the labour force (from Slovakia we mention: Hanzelová – Bellan, 2009; Kárász, 2009; National..., 2007). But is this the only reason?

If we were to search for lessons from the studies of migrants, these usually state that successful integration and adaptation to the labour market is connected with the positive influence of the time spent in the receiving country (Borjas, 1995). Specifically with the Roma nationality in Slovakia this criterion doesn’t fit, because the Roma have lived in Slovakia for centuries and belong to the structure of the domestic citizenry of the country. A lot of migration studies, however, alongside the length of stay of migrants in the receiving country emphasise the importance of additional characteristics for success on the labour market, such as different individual and culturally specifics (Baker – Dwayne, 1994; Reimers, 1985; Schoeni, 1998). With a certain generalisation in can be said that in summary they point to the role of ethnicity in economic behaviour; ethnic groups differ from one another, for example, in their view of the role of women and men in the family and on the work of mothers outside the household, as well as for the basic values of ascribed to children, family size, the structure of a household or on the basis of education of women. These in summarily called “cultural” differences (more precisely genderfamily) can increase systemic or structural disparities and change expectations for the role of women and men which lead to the strengthening of differences in the behaviour of women (and men) of different ethnic groups.

Available studies of marginalised Roma communities which have tried to integrate the gender dimension,34 noted the strong influence of family stereotypes in Roma societies, as well as the higher level of limitations of the human rights of Roma women (see Box 9.4). This is subsequently shown in their position on the labour market.

Differences between women and men in basic indicators describing the situation of women in relation to the labour market are presented in Table 9.9. The data confirmed the gender disproportions in all compared indicators; they were actually in the Roma and the general population but the “gap” was many times higher for Roma. Employment of Roma women was also with the overall very low level for the entire Roma population in all age and generational groups minimally half as much versus Roma men (on average 20% for Roma men and 10% for Roma women).

In comparison with the geographically close general population the lagging of Roma women was higher upon comparison with the employment of men. The measure of employment of Roma men was in comparison with men from the geographically close general population less than one-third as high (20% versus 6% and 65%), for Roma women this was in comparison with women from the general population 4-5-times less (11% versus 49% and 57%). The “geographical-ethnic” gender gap in employment was in the case of women large already in the youngest generation (7.7% for Roma women age 15-24 years to 16.7% for the same women from the general population), but with a transition to older generation still expanded (up to a difference of 4.7% to 23.7% for the 55-64 years age category).

Specifically, for the population defined by the age interval age 15+ years employment of Roma women reached a level of 10.5% and the employment of women from the geographically close general population reached a level of 39.6%; for Roma women and general men this was 19.5% to 52.7%.35 Unemployment among men and women, its measure, did not differ within both compared populations as employment did. The reason was the overall high unemployment for the Roma, and in comparison with this the low, but gender equal unemployment for the geographically close general population. In the Roma population the difference between women and men represented about 3%; its value for the general population

34 It’s necessary to truthfully remark that research and studies attempting to capture the gender dimension in Roma societies are still a fairly rare phenomenon in Slovakia. The study of the Cultural Association of Roma Women in Slovakia, located in Banská Bystrica, can also be placed among the occasional research conducted (Data on..., 2009; KZRS, 2005).

35 The average measure of employment for the entire population of Slovakia reached in 2010, 58.2% in men and 43.4% in the case of women (for more details see Box 9.3). This means that not only Roma men and women but also men and women representing the geographically close general population showed a rather significantly lower employment than all the men and women in the country. The obtained data repeatedly identified three types of reduction in the level of employment: among the whole of Slovakia and the general population from regions neighbouring Roma communities; between the general population from areas near to Roma communities and the Roma population; between members of individual types of Roma communities. In regard to these general geographic and ethnic differences gender differences can still be added.

151

R E P O R T O N T H E L I V I N G CO N D I T I O N S O F R O MA H O U S E H O L D S I N S LO VA K I A 2010

Table 9.10 Basic indicators of work activity of the Roma population age 15-64 years by education – comparison with the subsets and with the geographically close general population (in %) Less than standard primary school Standard primary

school and unfinished secondary school

Secondary school without a schoolleaving certificate

Secondary school with a school-leaving certificate and more

Segregated Measure of employment Measure of unemployment Economically active Outside the labour market

11.8 77.8 53.0 47.0

14.0 78.5 65.0 35.0

18.2 72.0 65.0 35.0

44.4 42.9 77.7 22.3

Measure of employment Measure of unemployment Economically active Outside the labour market

9.8 79.7 48.4 51.6

18.0 73.4 67.7 32.3

29.0 63.3 79.0 21.0

22.2 50.0 44.4 55.6

Measure of employment Measure of unemployment Economically active Outside the labour market General population Measure of employment Measure of unemployment Economically active Outside the labour market Roma population total Measure of employment Measure of unemployment Economically active Outside the labour market Roma men Measure of employment Measure of unemployment Economically active Outside the labour market Roma women Measure of employment Measure of unemployment Economically active Outside the labour market

4.1 91.5 48.4 51.6

14.9 77.0 64.5 35.5

39.4 46.8 74.0 26.0

42.1 38.5 68.4 31.6

12.5 33.3 18.8 81.2

39.6 13.6 45.9 54.1

56.2 17.0 67.7 32.3

71.3 5.2 75.2 24.8

9.2 81.7 50.1 49.9

15.6 76.2 65.7 34.3

29.9 59.2 73.3 26.7

37.8 41.7 64.8 35.2

11.1 83.5 66.9 33.1

20.1 75.4 81.8 18.2

36.0 58.2 86.0 14.0

42.1 42.9 73.7 26.3

7.5 78.7 35.2 64.8

11.8 77.2 51.7 48.3

19.0 62.0 50.0 50.0

33.3 40.0 55.5 44.4

Separated

Diffused

Note: Indicators used according to VZPS. Economic activity (i.e. labour force – working and unemployed together) and persons outside the labour market give a total of 100%. The group secondary school with a school-leaving certificate and more had for the Roma population only a very low representation (n = 35). The category of education “less than standard primary school” included special schools and an unfinished primary school education.

152

in comparison with them was one-seventh as much, but by gender the difference was only by 1%. While unemployment of Roma men age 15-64 years climbed to 72% and for Roma women more than 75%, for the general population of the group it had a value for men of just over 10% and for women more than 9%. At the same time it follows from this that for the general population unemployment was higher for men and for the Roma population this was the opposite – women had a higher measure of unemployment than men. Roma women of the middle generation had the highest unemployment of all at 75.7%, while from the geographically close general population this was again men belonging to the youngest pre-productive generation (26.1%).

While employment in a mutual comparison between and within the compared two populations showed gender differences (significantly differing between men and women in both the Roma and the general populations), with the measure of unemployment such a clear summary didn’t apply. Although unemployment differed many times over between the Roma and the general population (more than 70% to 10%), in a comparison within the populations the difference was not large (for men and women from the Roma population over 70% and for the general around 10%). Women, especially Roma women, were to a larger measure outside the labour market: 56% of Roma women age 15-64 years in contrast to 45.8% of women from the general population and 28.1% of Roma men.36

R E P O R T O N T H E L I V I N G CO N D I T I O N S O F R O MA H O U S E H O L D S I N S LO VA K I A 2010

Exclusion of the Roma population from the labour market (economically inactive) is large, and successful placement on it (working) is low in the overall view, but with Roma women it acquires an exceedingly huge dimension, which further expands with spatial exclusion. One-tenth of Roma women working is a bad result for Slovakia, which with great probability will not be fully explained by the free choice of women for remaining in the household.

But let us return to the effect of achieved education on the final standing on the labour market. An overview of the main indicators of the position of different studied groups for four categories of education is presented in Table 9.10. As follows from the data, the effects of education on the growth of economic activity and em-

Graph 9.30 Measure of unemployment of the Roma population age 15-64 years by achieved education – comparison with the geographically close general population (in %) Geographically close general population Roma population total 90 81.7 80

76.2

70 59.2

60 50

41.7 40

33.3

30 17.0

20 Geographically close general population

13.6

10

5.2

Roma population total

56.2

50 39.6

40

37.8

30 29.9 20

12.5 15.6

10

Secondary school without a school-leaving certificate (Secondary vocational school)

70 60

0 Less than standard primary school

71.3

Standard primary school and unfinished secondary school

80

Secondary school with a school-leaving certificate and more

Graph 9.29 Measure of employment of the Roma population age 15-64 years by achieved education – comparison with the geographically close general population (in %)

Note: The measure of unemployment was according to the VZPS methodology. The group secondary school with a school-leaving certificate and more had for the Roma population only a very low representation (n = 35). The category of education “less than standard primary school” included special schools and an unfinished primary school education.

9.2 Secondary school with a school-leaving certificate and more

Secondary school without a school-leaving certificate (Secondary vocational school)

Standard primary school and unfinished secondary school

Less than standard primary school

0

Note: The measure of employment was according to the VZPS methodology. The group secondary school with a school-leaving certificate and more had for the Roma population only a very low representation (n = 35). The category of education “less than standard primary school” included special schools and an unfinished primary school education.

ployment on one hand and the lowering of employment and the share of people outside the labour market on the other is confirmed for all monitored subsets of the Roma population.

In relation to the entire Roma population within the age group 15-64 years, similarly as with declared, and on the basis of employed counted using the VZPS methodology an increase in the measure of employment was shown with advancement toward a higher degree of achieved education. The measure of employment gradually grew from 9.2% in the category of less than standard primary school, through 15.6% with a standard primary education and unfinished secondary school, to

36 With the measure of economic activity this was the exact opposite – Roma women achieved the lowest level (only 44% of economically active Roma women age 15-64 years in contrast to 54.2% of women from the general population and 71.9% of Roma men).

153

R E P O R T O N T H E L I V I N G CO N D I T I O N S O F R O MA H O U S E H O L D S I N S LO VA K I A 2010

Table 9.11 Measure of association between the share of working and unemployed economically activity in the Roma population age 15+ years and selected factors of influence for individual subsets by type of settlement (Spearman‘s rho)

Type of settlement Sex Age Education Number of household members Number of children to 14 years Common language Experience with school Structure of children at school Total literacy Education of parents Live in municipality without interruption Completed training Health status Chronic illness and limitation in activities Number of doctor visits Work in any activation programme Experience with work Index of discrimination

Segregated Separated Diffused Total Rho Sign.

Rho Sign.

Rho Sign.

Rho Sign.

— — — — — — 0.040 0.170 -0.03 0.610 0.00 0.958 -0.08 0.108 -0.034 0.238 0.07 0.154 0.09 0.066 -0.05 0.337 0.038 0.182 0.06 0.276 0.12 0.016 0.32 0.000 0.173 0.000 -0.06 0.278 -0.08 0.111 -0.07 0.172 -0.072 0.012 -0.13 0.009 -0.13 0.007 -0.10 0.052 -0.122 0.000 0.01 0.891 0.01 0.907 0.10 0.052 0.038 0.191 -0.02 0.718 0.06 0.212 0.21 0.000 0.098 0.001 0.17 0.002 0.07 0.192 0.13 0.009 0.130 0.000 0.05 0.351 0.22 0.000 0.30 0.000 0.196 0.000 -0.10 0.079 0.06 0.280 0.31 0.000 0.120 0.000 0.13 0.011 0.00 0.931 -0.04 0.460 0.027 0.354 0.27 0.000 0.01 0.884 0.03 0.603 0.093 0.015 -0.04 0.434 -0.14 0.007 0.01 0.798 -0.055 0.065 -0.02 0.753 -0.01 0.859 0.00 0.930 -0.010 0.743 -0.06 0.256 0.06 0.230 0.04 0.492 0.014 0.623 -0.10 0.044 -0.08 0.113 -0.32 0.000 -0.170 0.000 0.21 0.000 0.36 0.000 0.33 0.000 0.304 0.000 -0.04 0.399 -0.04 0.363 -0.09 0.090 -0.060 0.036

Note: Calculated for the Roma population age 15+ years. The struck out numbers mean that the value is not significant for any level of significance.

154

29.9% for finished vocational school, and finally to 37.8% for secondary school with a school-leaving certificate and a higher education (Graph 9.29).

The difference between the level of employment of the Roma and the geographically close general populations was shown to be stable. The measure of employment for the general population was found to be higher in all four categories and was significantly higher except for the lowest educational level. With those having less than standard primary school the difference was on the level of approximately one-quarter, with the remaining degrees of education the measure of employment of Roma was more-or-less half as much. It remains only to repeat the conclusion for declared employment: despite the same geographic environment the work results for the Roma population is significantly lower in all educational groups.

The measure of unemployment displays a completely opposite association in relation to education (Graph 9.30); with growing education it is decreased. While with education lower than standard primary school the measure of unemployment for the Roma exceeded 81%, with progression to the group with standard primary school fell to 76.2%, with vocational school it fell below 60% and for secondary school with a school-leaving certificate and higher it fell further to not quite 42%. In comparison with the geographically close general population, however, the measure of unemployment found in all educational categories was also a great deal smaller, including the highest education (41.7% to 5.2%).

The gains from a higher education in the form of a better position on the labour market was thus for the Roma population smaller than with the general population. It can be assumed from this that the Roma population, when looking for qualified work, must face greater or more problems also when they acquire a higher degree of education, because unemployment in the Roma population is very high even for the group with a higher education.

A more summary view of factors potentially influencing successful or unsuccessful placement of the labour force on the labour market is made possible by correlation coefficients. As Table 9.11 shows, among the factors with the strongest impact on the classification to the working or the unemployed in the case of economically active Roma population age 15+ years is the total experience with work activities during one‘s lifetime, actual education and comprehensive literacy. The total set indicates a possible more significant association also with the education of parents, work in an activation programme and the structure of children in school. Indeed, the data for the entire set of the Roma labour force indicated a low but statistically significant association between the quality of placement on the labour market even with experience with school, completed schooling, the number of children at home and the index of discrimination. A statistically significant association with the type of housing, sex and age appears, the reason being be the high share of unemployed in all categories for these three indicators (in segregated, separated and diffused; in men and women; in the younger, middle and older generations).37

R E P O R T O N T H E L I V I N G CO N D I T I O N S O F R O MA H O U S E H O L D S I N S LO VA K I A 2010

Individual factors demonstrated a different intensity for the defined subsets of the Roma population by type of settlement. For the segregated subset the working of the monitored agents was weak, which testifies about the very homogeneous environment from the viewpoint of placement in the labour force on the labour market (for example, not quite 3% of Roma women living segregated were working); thus, it is difficult to find here an agent increasing the probability of employment. In separated communities differentiation increased on the basis of some factors, but the strongest association appeared for those living diffused.

The overall experience with work, actual education and the education of parents, literacy and experience with school were differentiated. A negative correlation was expressed with work in an activation programme tied to a work facility; probably a large part of those who at sometime took part in activation activities was made up by the current participants in such a programme, which is exclusive with paid employment.

An attempt at coordinating the influence of individual potential factors into a more systematic form generated, on the basis of the statistical processes used, the subsequent picture (see the Figure 1 to Chapter 9). Overall literacy emerged as the primary differentiating factor influencing whether someone from the available labour force of the Roma population age 15+ years works or is unemployed. The share of the unemployed increased significantly and the share working dropped according to whether the surveyed individuals had a problem with reading or with writing (at least one of them), or if they could handle both of these skills without problems. The working of other agents differed in the presented two groups – other associations were expressed in the Roma with weak literacy (including illiteracy) and others for the group who could read and write without problems.

Actual education appeared as the second differentiating agent behind the group of problems according to literacy – the share of those unemployed significantly increased and of those working decreased with holders of a primary and lower education, for vocational school and higher education this involved movement in the opposite direction in the proportions of those working and those unemployed. The third agent in order was for the group with a low degree of education the type of settlement according to spatial exclusion; in the group with a higher education the index of discrimination was found to be the third most important agent.

For the group without any problems with literacy defined by writing and reading, the education of the parents was classified as the second level of influence. If both parents had less than primary school, a third differentiating agent was the structure of children in school (segregated education); if at least one parent had a higher than primary education the number of children in the household impacted the proportion of working and unemployed (with more children the share of working decreased and the share of unemployed increased).

A list of possible factors of influence on (un)employment of the Roma population is therefore relatively broad and diverse according to the specific situation and starting conditions. But for makers of policy this can very specifically signify, where interventions in the interest of increasing employment of the Roma population are necessary, which is a basic source of the income needed for breaking out of poverty (but also personal satisfaction and fulfilment, social contacts and the like). In addition to improving the qualifying prerequisites, this is also an improvement of the educational system, removing spatial segregation and discrimination and strengthening opportunities for harmonising household and work obligations also outside of large towns and municipalities.

9.3.4. Quality and stability of work activities of the Roma population For a closer description of the position of some group of the population on the labour market, it is not enough to characterise only the level of only the connection. In addition to economic activity and employment, other indicators which tell of the range and quality of the work performed are also important. The type of work performed, the intensity of the work expressed by the number of hours worked, the stability of employment, the type of work activity and work contract, are added to them and an important indicator is obviously the amount paid for the work. All of the listed aspects of work were tracked in the study; Table 9.12 offers a summary overview of them for the individual subsets of the Roma population age 15 years and more and a comparison with the geographically close general population. It was not possible to perform a more detailed classification, however, in regard to the very low measure of unemployment38 and the small number of those working in the surveyed subsets of Roma population.

37 The fact that no statistically significant association was expressed between the method of placement of the labour force on the labour market and the monitored health factors could be a consequence of the fact that persons with larger health care problems remain outside of the labour market (the economically inactive were excluded from the calculation).

38 As is presented in Table 9.8, on average only 15% of the Roma population age 15 years and more are classified among working according to the VZPS methodology; for those living segregated this is only 13%. Therefore, it is necessary to view the presented percentage in the overview of indicators of work activity (Table 9.12) only as information about basic tendencies, it is not possible to extrapolate more broadly and even analyse in more detail in mutual associations.

155

R E P O R T O N T H E L I V I N G CO N D I T I O N S O F R O MA H O U S E H O L D S I N S LO VA K I A 2010

Table 9.12 Selected indicators of work activity or the Roma population age 15+ years – comparison of subsets and with the geographically close general population (in %) Roma population Segregated Separated (n= 93) (n=118)

Diffused (n=113)

Geographically close general population (n=409)

Total (n=324)

Type of work performed Unqualified manual worker Qualified manual worker Operator or service worker Higher qualified position total Number of hours worked per week

What was the primary work you performed in the previous week, what is your primary job?

66.7 59.1 35.4 50.6 7.0 22.9 36.1 55.2 41.4 35.2 10.4 4.8 5.2 6.2 17.2 — — 4.2 1.8 40.6 How many hours did you perform this work in the previous week, or how many hours per week did you usually work in your primary job?

Less than 20 hours 20-39 hours 40 hours 42 hours 43-50 hours 51 and more hours

23.0 14.7 12.8 9.7 1.2 8.4 8.5 5.3 12.9 9.6 47.9 56.1 58.9 55.7 54.6 — 3.7 8.4 4.9 19.5 12.5 17.1 5.3 11.0 12.3 8.4 — 9.5 5.8 2.8 How many months have you done this work since the start of the year?

13.6 1.2 10.6 7.6 1.6 20.5 13.3 9.5 13.1 2.6 22.8 9.6 14.7 14.5 2.6 43.1 75.9 65.2 64.8 93.2 In this work you were...

87.8 81.0 87.4 85.2 81.5 7.3 12.7 3.2 7.4 15.5 — 1.3 5.3 2.8 2.2 2.4 — 4.2 2.3 0.8 2.4 5.1 — 2.3 — What kind of contract did you have for this work?

41.9 50.0 60.5 52.8 89.9 18.6 14.7 7.0 12.2 3.8 9.3 14.7 5.8 9.6 1.9 9.3 7.4 18.6 12.7 2.2 14.0 2.9 — 4.1 0.3 7.0 7.4 5.8 6.6 1.6 — 2.9 2.4 2.0 0.3 Is your employer...

59.1 66.2 76.7 69.2 70.6 6.8 3.1 5.8 5.1 13.8 15.9 21.5 7.0 13.8 4.4 9.1 — 5.8 4.6 10.0 9.1 9.3 4.7 7.2 1.3 Did you receive payment, a wage or other remuneration for this work from the employer in cash or other forms?

Work performed 1-3 months 4-6 months 7-10 months Whole year* Position in employment Employee Self-employed Employer Helping in DH** Other Work contract Permanent contract Contract for < 6 mos.

Contract for > 6 mos.

Work agreement Casual work Trial job, training For a commission, no contract Type of employer Private company Public sector Local body State enterprise Individual and other Payment for work Yes No

91.1 8.9

90.1 9.9

95.3 4.7

92.6 7.4

99.7 0.3

Amount of wages EUR 200 and less EUR 201 – 400 EUR 401 – 600 EUR 601 – 800 EUR 801 and more Newness of work Yes No

156

25.8 13.0 18.7 18.3 60.0 61.1 32.2 49.2 8.6 22.2 39.0 25.7 5.8 3.8 3.4 4.1 — — 6.8 2.7 Did you start a new job or your own business from the start of the year?

14.3 5.3 7.2 7.7 85.7 94.7 92.8 92.3

4.3 30.7 39.6 17.1 8.4 3.6 96.4

Note: The presented data only for working individuals age 15+ who responded to the question, according to the VZPS methodology. *Since the collection of data ran in November and December, answers 11 and 12 months from the start of the year are calculated in the “whole year” category. **DH = household management or home business.

R E P O R T O N T H E L I V I N G CO N D I T I O N S O F R O MA H O U S E H O L D S I N S LO VA K I A 2010

In relation to the type of work performed, the study confirmed the predominance of manual work in the Roma population, and in the segregated and separated settlements even the predominance of unqualified manual work. Among those working from the geographically close general population the share of respondents who were classified according to the work performed as unqualified manual workers was only 7%; of all the working Roma, however, it surpassed one-half and for those living segregated increased to two-thirds. In summary, 42% of the working general population, but 92% of working Roma, were labelled as manual workers.

Conversely, only 2% of the entire working Roma population found worked in higher qualified positions like an operations worker in service and business (i. e. in administrative, professional and creative or management; positions); for the geographically close general population this was more than 40%.

The work of the Roma population developed less often in the standard regime, that is eight or eight and a half hours per day (which is 40 â&#x20AC;&#x201C; 42 hours worked per week). While 74.1% of those working from the general population had such a length for the work day, among working Roma this was nearly 10 percentage points less (60.6%). The segregated living level significantly decreased standard work time â&#x20AC;&#x201C; the share working such a period in this case did not even make up one-half. Working Roma performed work with a shorter work time than is standard (together more than one-fifth of all working Roma, form the general working this was one-tenth), in the end with very short work time (up to 23% of the working population living segregated worked fewer than 20 hours for the previous week). The share of a longer work time was approximately the same according to the study in both compared population: 16.8% of working Roma and 15.1% of the working general population.

There can be several subjective reasons for the low number of hours worked (illness, the need to harmonise work with family obligations, etc.); it could at the same time also signal a lower measure of accessibility to stable and standard jobs on the side of the Roma population in the given geographic surroundings.

The period of performing current work for a certain time period also addresses the question of stability of work or work performed. Since the data collection was carried out in November and December, in the questionnaire the period of working from the start of 2010 was also surveyed. A notable difference in the performance of work during the whole year was expressed: while for those working from the geographically close general population the share of working the entire year exceeded 93%, the average for working Roma was lower than 65%.

In segregated environments this was still significantly less â&#x20AC;&#x201C; only 43%; the share of shorter work periods here was notably higher than the average for the whole of the

working Roma and incomparably higher in comparison with those working from the geographically close general population. Although the share of new graduates arriving on the labour market (for first employment) or a new job enters into the resultant value for this indicator, the huge disproportion found with great probability confirmed the higher occurrence of temporary and casual work, that is, unstable work in the scope of the Roma population at all and especially in those living segregated.

The higher endangerment or vulnerability of job done by the Roma population was also signalled by the position in the employment and the work contract. Although in both compared neighbouring populations the position of employee predominated among the possible positions in employment and only a small share of employers was shown, in the case of the rest of the work statuses certain differences were expressed. In those working from the geographically close general population the number of self-employed was two-times higher, while in the Roma population again there was a higher representation of those helping with housekeeping or a family business or other work statuses. The group of employees differed for the Roma population and the geographically close general population according to the type of contract. It was also shown that in the case of work commitment of the Roma population more temporary work is involved: only half of these had an indefinite work contract, while from the general population this contract was strongly dominant at 90%. An entire half of working Roma performed current work on the basis of a contract closed for a period of less than a half-year or longer, on a work agreement, occasional work had a high share, along with training or work on commission or without any contract. While from those working from the geographically close general population achieved only a 2% share of the last three mentioned possibilities for working Roma it exceeded on average one-tenth and in the subset living segregated up to one-fifth. Occasional jobs are significantly widespread in segregated environments.

According to the type of employer, in both compared populations employment in a private firm or company predominated with a share of 70%; the remaining 30% worked for others types of employers. At the same time it was shown that jobs in the public and state sector were more accessible for the geographically close general population; Roma worked more often for local bodies or for individuals or for another subject (for example, a non-profit organisation), and more significantly more of them were among the separated and segregated.

Less quality and less stable work also brings fewer benefits in the form of work bonuses, which the study confirmed. Although non-payment of a work bonus was not widely represented, it did occur almost exclusively in the Roma population. More than 7% of working

157

R E P O R T O N T H E L I V I N G CO N D I T I O N S O F R O MA H O U S E H O L D S I N S LO VA K I A 2010

Roma (from segregated and separated nearly onetenth) declared non-payment of a wage or other payments for work conscripted for an employer; the majority of them, when asked the reason why they were not paid gave the response “I don’t know”. Payments for working Roma were in summary significantly lower than for those working from the geographically close general population. More than 18% of the working Roma population listed payment for work up to EUR 200 (more than 14% of this was up to EUR 100); among the general population only about a 4% share had such a wage. The large predominance of the Roma population was also expressed for the second lowest wage level defined by the sum EUR 200 to EUR 400; with sums above EUR 400 the general population predominated. A total of 65% of those working from the general population had remuneration for work of more than EUR 400, in comparison with 32% among working Roma; payment above EUR 600 was listed by more than one-quarter of the general working population versus not quite 7% for working Roma. In view of the low number of those working in the Roma population it made no sense to further classify the amount listed as remuneration by other aspect of work performed; the majority, however, involved payments covering an entire month; the share for a shorter period represented 4% of Roma living diffused and one-tenth of segregated, while in other subsets this hardly occurred at all.

A total of 8% of all Roma currently working at the time of the survey began from the start of the year a new job or a new business and only 4% of the working general population. The study did not collect information about a contribution from the state or a support grant for the launching of a business; the drawing of such benefits was merely given by individuals – from the Roma and the general population. The presence of or the carrying out of other work along with the given primary employment was also surveyed, and again only a few individuals listed other work.39 The collected empirical data also confirms that from this small group of those working in the Roma population there was a great share, significantly larger than among the geographically close general population, of creating jobs that are not very stable or of much quality. A great deal more often this involved unqualified work, manual work, temporary work, with few work obligations, for fewer standard employees and with low payment for the work. Such types of jobs usually offer low or no social-work protection and security. And with a shift toward segregated living the stable and more quality jobs significantly decreased.

158

9.3.5. Characteristics of unemployment of the Roma population and experience with institutions As is presented above, the level of unemployment of the Roma population was found to be very high in all three compared environments and versus the result for the geographically close general population was seven times higher in the end. Specifically for the age group age 15 years and more the measure of unemployment based on the VZPS methodology reached 73% on average, while the control sample of the general population was not quite 10%. Table 9.13 presents the other characteristics of the unemployed from the viewpoint of the registration of unemployment and its duration, but also what do they think about the approach of the labour office and the effectiveness of available help with looking for work, including personal experiences with the approach of employers.

The data speaks about the fact that an absolute majority of identified unemployed was at the time of the study registered with the labour office, among the Roma unemployed, however, this share was actually lower in comparison with the geographically close general population (88.9% to 97.7% of all unemployed). Of unemployed Roma then more than one-tenth were not registered with the labour office while with unemployed from the geographically close general this was approximately 2%. Among the reasons why they are not registered the most commonly given possibility was “it’s not important to me; I don’t care” (more than 35% of unregistered employed Roma). Those living diffused stated this to a greater measure, but those this also occurred in the remaining two subsets. Second in order was the reason “the work office didn’t help me at all with a job” (declared by approximately one-quarter of them), and again this was most often among those living diffused. With nearly equal frequency on the level of one-quarter followed the response “I didn’t cooperate”; this had a more abundant occurrence with unemployed from separated settlements. The reason for not registering formulated as “they excluded me against my will” was contained in the responses only rarely, and only those from segregated and separated settlement gave it. A relatively large portion of unregistered unemployed Roma (approximately one-fifth of them) was not able or not willing to answer. And those living segregated refused most of all to not give a response regarding the reason for not registering at the labour office; 40% of the related respondents came from this group.40

39 Of the Roma population age 15 years and more this was 16 individuals and most involved work in the amount of 2-3 hours per week; from the general population the number was 19 people who worked 2 to 20 hours at a second job in the last week.

40 Only for completeness: with unregistered unemployed individuals representing the geographically close general population (sporadically) only one possible response occurred– “I didn’t cooperated”.

R E P O R T O N T H E L I V I N G CO N D I T I O N S O F R O MA H O U S E H O L D S I N S LO VA K I A 2010

Table 9.13 Selected indicators for the unemployed Roma population age 15+ years – compared with subsets and with the geographically close general population (in %) Roma population Segregated Separated (n=293) (n=305) Registered unemployment Yes No Period of registration - half-year and less - over ½ year - 1 year - over 1year - 2 years - over 2 years - 5 years - over 5 years Help from labour office* Very helpful Rather helpful Not very helpful Not helpful at all Information from side of labour office* Provided sufficient information Did not provide sufficient information Did not provide any information Usefulness of information from labour office* Very usefu Useful Not useful Totally useless Experience on the labour market** They refused to hire me

Diffused (n=284)

Geographically close general population (n= 45)

Total (n=882)

Are you registered as unemployed, applicant for employment at the relevant labour office?

92.0 90.4 83.9 88.9 97.7 8.0 9.6 16.1 11.1 2.3 How many months have you been registered with the labour office?

13.4 12.5 15.5 13.6 17.5 29.5 16.2 22.6 22.8 50.0 13.8 18.9 16.8 16.7 17.5 24.8 29.8 29.6 28.0 10.0 18.5 22.6 15.5 18.9 5.0 Was the labour office helpful to you personally with looking for work?

2.8 2.0 0.4 1.8 11.6 16.5 27.7 18.3 35.7 45.6 43.5 35.5 41.7 52.4 40.0 37.9 36.6 38.2 11.9 Did the labour office provide you with information which could help you look for work?

8.9 21.3 18.8 16.2 23.8 55.2 41.0 47.6 48.0 59.5 35.9 37.7 33.6 35.8 16.7 The information offered by the labour office is for you...: 5.0 2.2 2.1 3.1 3.2 14.2 15.4 22.9 17.6 25.8 62.4 66.2 54.9 61.0 67.7 18.4 16.2 20.1 18.3 3.2 Have you experienced during your adult life some of the following situations?

23.5 8.7 16.9 16.3 20.5 68.2 76.5 69.7 71.5 54.5

Laid off from work

26.5 51.1

20.4 47.7

31.6 35.9

26.1 45.1

45.2 35.7

Unpaid wage for recruited work

14.0 14.0

11.4 9.9

8.7 10.2

11.4 11.4

12.0 -

Bad, brusque behaviour of colleagues

14.9 13.5

1.4 15.0

7.4 21.7

8.0 16.5

2.4 4.9

Bad, brusque behaviour of a boss

15.1 15.5

4.4 13.2

12.7 18.3

10.8 15.6

9.5 16.7

Note: The data presented is only for unemployed individuals age 15+ years using the VZPS methodology, who answered the question. Because the group of unemployed for the geographically close general population had only a small number, the presented percentages are only informative. *With characters marked by one asterisk only data for respondents to whom the question related are presented. ** In this part of the table the one-time occurrence of the given situation is given in the first line (response “yes, one time”) and in the second line the repeated occurrence (response “yes, more than once”).

According to the length of the period registered at a labour office long-term unemployment predominated in the Roma population, and this was despite the significantly younger population versus the geographically close general population. Approximately one-third of unemployed Roma had registered unemployment of duration up to one year (inclusive) and two-thirds had longterm unemployment defined by a period of more than one year; of this, 17% listed unemployment lasting up to two years, 28% between two and five years and 19% longer than five years. For the geographically close general population the share of shorter and long-term unemployment was the opposite – two-thirds were unemployed for a year and less and one-third longer than

one year; furthermore, in those growing length of registration the proportion of so excluded rapidly decreased. Unemployment over five years got among unemployed Roma nearly 19%, but in the geographically close general population this was 5%; up to 46% of unemployed Roma had a period of unemployment lasting longer than two years had together, and for the general population this set was 15%.41 All Roma subsets were stricken with very long-term unemployment, but the strongest were residents of segregated settlements: this set accounted for more than half of all the segregated unemployed (more than 52%) and with declining spatial exclusion the share gradually lowered to 45% for separated and 43% for unemployed persons living dif-

159

R E P O R T O N T H E L I V I N G CO N D I T I O N S O F R O MA H O U S E H O L D S I N S LO VA K I A 2010

fused. Although this involves in the background of the general regional space a significantly higher share of longterm unemployment in all three Roma environments, exclusion on the basis of settlement type or the housing situation is still worse.

So long as an evaluation of the effectiveness of labour offices by the unemployed themselves is involved, this is founded on standard questions. It first mapped the opinions on the helpfulness of offices with looking for work. An absolute majority of the unemployed expressed the conviction that the office is not particularly helpful with finding them work. The negative evaluation predominated in all compared subsets, but the most significantly critical voice sounded from the side of unemployed Roma. Overall up to 80% of them gave a negative evaluation, and from this approximately half leaned toward the response “not very helpful“ and the other half expressed a more decisive critical opinion in the form of “didn’t help at all”. Among unemployed members of the geographically close general population a critical opinion likewise predominated regarding the ability of the labour office to help a path to employment, though it moved on the level of over 60% and only a small part of this was radically critical. From Roma respondents the most negative opinion of help from the side of the labour market was expressed by the unemployed living in segregated settlement (together only 14% positive responses), followed by separated with 18.5% convinced about received help, and among those living diffused the share of positive evaluations was 28%. The opinion on personal assistance of offices with searching for work was thus generally critical, but with worse evaluations expressed by unemployed Roma and with spatial exclusion the critical voices increased. According to empirical data, it’s as if spatial exclusion at the same time also meant exclusion from abilities and possibilities to help.

The second surveyed fact when assessing labour offices was the provision of information helping with finding work. The same associations follow from the responses as in the previous case. Unemployed Roma, of whom at least 35% expressed the conviction that the labour office did not offer any information which would help them with looking for work, assessed this aspect more critically; about half as many unemployed from the geographically close general population leaned toward the same response. The most critical view among the unemployed Roma regarding sufficient information was again found among those living segregated: less than one-tenth of them ex-

160

pressed the conviction about sufficient information offered in the interest of helping them find work, and this was around two-tenths from the separated and diffused population and for the general population the share was closer to one-quarter of all unemployed.

The triad of questions devoted to assessing the activities of labour offices ended with a question on the usefulness of information provided, to which only responded those unemployed who received some information from them. On the basis of a subjective evaluation about 20% of those from the group of unemployed Roma received useful information at the office and from the geographically close general population this was approximately 10% less. The usefulness of the information was most positively evaluated by members of the general population (29%), and then Roma living diffused (25%); in the case of segregated and separated population the share of positive evaluations fell to 19% and less.

The last two mentioned groups of unemployed Rom declared not only a smaller range of information provided but also their smaller usefulness from the perspective of finding work. The connection of spatial exclusion with exclusion from the capability to help is thus expanded by the exclusion from being well-informed. Although the general deficiency of job opportunities in the environs of Roma settlements of the separated and mainly the segregated type42 and the low qualification prerequisites for employment in those groups,43 which labour offices significantly limit in opportunities to help with finding work probably affected the status found, the discovered negative evaluation of activities of offices could equally to a certain measure signal also the different approach from the side of offices toward different clients, or the worse access to offices and the services offer by them for spatially excluded groups of the Roma population. The impact of the individual named factors or others (unwillingness to participate, deficiencies and suitable instruments for help, absence of generally affirmative support events, deficiencies in work labour and business legislation, etc), however, a quantitative survey of such a broad stroke was not possible to measure. Upon setting of programmes, however, it is necessary to consider all of the mentioned aspects.

Another strong circle with an impact on the resultant employment or unemployment which continuously remains unknown is the functioning of the labour market in relation to the Roma work force. It is here that different discriminatory practices and barriers of a structural

41 Again it is necessary here to emphasise the information beneath Table 9.13, that the group of unemployed for the geographically close general population was innumerably smaller, because the given percentages have more of an informative character and serve exclusively for a comparative look at the situation in the same regional space.

42 All in-depth interviews carried out with experts of different types and focus (offices, local administration, non-governmental organisations, field workers, etc.) that followed in the further stages and are in the processing stage emphasised this aspect.

43 See the previous section of this chapter, or the chapter on education (Chapter 8).

R E P O R T O N T H E L I V I N G CO N D I T I O N S O F R O MA H O U S E H O L D S I N S LO VA K I A 2010

Graph 9.31 Experience with negative situation on the labour market for the basic group of Roma population age 15+ – comparison with the geographically close general population (in %) 0

10

Unpaid wages

Employed general population

19.8

Roma population total

19.1

Brusque behaviour of a boss They refused to hire me

20.7

20.0

Employed general population

18.6

45.1

16.9 40.9

19.2

Unemployed general population

12

15.3

11.4 0

16.3

Employed Roma population

5.7

5.2

Unemployed Roma population

8.0

13.8

2.3

9.9

General population total

35.7 43.3

24.2

11.4

100

61.8

Employed Roma population

Unemployed Roma population

90

20.7

45.2

General population total

80

54.4

Unemployed general population

Roma population total

70

54.5

26.1

Unemployed Roma population

60 71.5

16.1

General population total

Laid off from work

50

24.9

Employed Roma population

Roma population total

40

20.5

Unemployed general population

Employed general population

30

16.3

Unemployed Roma population

Bad behaviour of a boss

20

12.3 2.2

16.5

Unemployed general population 2.4 4.9 Employed Roma population

12.4

Employed general population

4.3 4.9

Roma population total General population total

Unemployed Roma population Unemployed general population Employed Roma population Employed general population Roma population total General population total

20.2

9.1

16.5

4.5 5.2

10.8

15.6

9.5

16.7

11.2 7.5

21.5 8.1

10.5 7.3

16.3 8.6

yes, one time yes, more than once

Note: The data presented is only for individuals age 15+ years who answered the question; employed and unemployed are constructed on the basis of the VZPS methodology. Because the group of unemployed for the geographically close general population had only a small number, the presented percentages are only informative. The presented first number reveals the occurrence of the given situation (response “yes, one time”) and the second number means its repeated occurrence (response “yes, more than once”).

161

R E P O R T O N T H E L I V I N G CO N D I T I O N S O F R O MA H O U S E H O L D S I N S LO VA K I A 2010

character can be covered. The researched factor is captured only with great difficulty, even the work inspectorate and anti-discrimination legislation is not enough to reveal them. In the study the experience of the Roma labour force with unfavourable experiences on the labour market which could point out some discriminatory practices, particularly on the basis of comparison with the labour force of the geographically close general population, were monitored. The factors monitored were the refusal to hire, being laid off from a job, unpaid wages, and finally the brusque behaviour from the side of colleagues and a boss. An attempt was made to map out the overall social environment or climate in the sphere of the labour market for a set of indicators consisting of the five most common situations which typically arise in connection with discrimination.44 Refusal to hire was the strongest for the unemployed representing the Roma population. Nearly 88% of them had such an experience (92% from segregated); among the geographically close general unemployed the share of refusal was lower at 75%. Overall, an absolute prevalence of the unemployed repeatedly experienced the refusal of being hired, but the share of repeated refusal was nearly 20% higher for the Roma (71.5% of unemployed Roma versus 54.5% of the general unemployed). Since this involves the experience of the unemployed, the very high occurrence of being laid off from work is not surprising.

This was in the end sum moderately higher for the general unemployed, and in the case of the Roma labour force a much higher repeated occurrence of this situation was expressed (45.1% versus 35.7% of unemployed), mainly in those from segregated and separated environments (where it moved around 50%). The remaining three surveyed situations were not as frequent as hiring and being laid off from work, but with all three the Roma unemployed recorded higher or at least equal occurrence.

Twice as many Roma unemployed experienced during their adult life unpaid wages (22.8% versus 12%); rude behaviour from colleagues was more than three-times higher for the Roma (24.5% versus 7.3%),45 while rude behaviour from a boss was in both compared groups of unemployed approximately equal (more than 26%).

The more extensive experience of the Roma population with negative experiences on the labour market is also confirmed for that part of the labour force which was employed at the time of the study as well as the entire population age 15+ years (Graph 9.31). For the employed and for the entire population age 15 years or

162

more (i. e. including all groups of economically inactive at the time of the study) experience with negative experiences on the labour market differed much more dramatically between the Roma and the general population than was the case between compared unemployed groups. For example, refusal to hire was in the case of the compared employed Roma up to twotimes more common (80% to 40%) and for the entire population age 15+ the difference was even higher (81% to 37%); being laid off of work with employed Roma and for the entire population was also two-times higher (approximately 65% to 35%); 30% of currently employed Roma had experienced unpaid wages and more than one-fifth of the entire set, while for the general set this occurrence moved between 7 to 8%; rude behaviour from colleagues during adult life was experienced by more than 30% of employed and a quarter of the entire set of Roma, while in the general population this was less than 10%; and finally bad behaviour from a boss was mentioned by twice as many employed and from the entire set of Roma in comparison with the same group of geographically close general population (33% and 27% versus 16%). This means that the Roma population faces on the labour market more hurdles and barriers than the geographically close general population.

Empirical data showed that not only the resultant effect of the activities of labour offices in the form of the employment situation of the target group but also the subjective evaluation of their activities and possibilities for help on their part came out as insufficient. Indicators of unemployment, the effectiveness of formal help and experience with unfavourable experiences on the labour market, many of which could have a discriminatory character, were likewise ranked among a wide group of indicators confirming the experience that exclusion on the basis of settlement type or residence is still significantly worsens the overall unfavourable position of the Roma population in the scope of geographic space. The existence of a general disadvantage of Roma ethnicity in relation to the labour market and employment, but also its escalation for the situation of separation and especially segregation in the geographic space, can be repeatedly remarked upon. One of the primary assumptions and integral component of programmes focused on overcoming the exclusion of the Roma population from the labour market should therefore also be the resolution of exclusion based on habitation – the removal of segregation and separation. Be-

44 See, for example, several outputs and monitoring of the report of the Slovak National Centre for Human Rights (www.snslp.sk), or studies and publications focused on monitoring discrimination on the labour market from the author’s workshop Institute for Public Affairs (www.ivo.sk) and the nonprofit organisation Citizen, Democracy and Accountability (www.oad.sk).

45 The already monitored non-payment of wages for work in the previous month indicates that such a situation is found more often in the Roma population (Table 9.12). Expanding its monitoring to the entire adult life repeatedly confirms this – for the Roma population of unemployed such an experience was two-times more common than in the geographically close general population unemployed, and fully most of all was found in segregated settlements (nearly 30% of the unemployed from segregated settlements had experience with non-payment of a wage).

R E P O R T O N T H E L I V I N G CO N D I T I O N S O F R O MA H O U S E H O L D S I N S LO VA K I A 2010

Table 9.14 Living conditions of Roma households with working and without working members – comparison with the geographically close general population (occurrence of selected indicators in %) Roma households by number of working members

Geographically close general households by number of working members

1 member (n=96)

1 member (n=98)

2+ members (n=49)

No one (n=578)

2+ members(n=122)

No one (n=140)

Excellent and good living conditions in dwellings Bad and very bad living conditions in dwellings Functioning bath or shower in dwellings Functioning flushing WC in dwellings Automatic washing machine in households Telephone in the household PC or laptop in the household Internet in the household Decidedly want children to continue from primary to secondary school

48.9 20.9 68.1 66.0 54.0 88.0 31.5 26.1 67.3

59.1 12.2 72.9 67.3 73.3 91.7 41.7 25.5 58.1

17.3 44.6 34.2 31.8 21.2 64.6 5.8 3.8 28.5

89.7 2.1 98.0 96.9 92.2 96.7 67.8 57.3 82.6

90.2 — 98.3 95.1 96.5 99.1 76.8 73.2 86.1

79.4 2.9 94.9 92.1 81.7 87.5 21.7 15.0 54.5

Full and partial satisfaction with financial situation of the household

27.4

38.8

4.7

48.5

56.2

39.1

(Very) easily cover outlays for education of children (primary school)

9.8

16.1

3.1

29.2

36.1

30.0

22.1

42.8

3.3

53.7

54.1

35.9

5.2

10.2

0.2

35.7

49.2

20.9

Possibility each day of food from meat or fish...

Possibility each year to buy new seasonal clothing and shoes

37.5 29.2

53.1 38.8

13.0 3.3

63.3 56.1

70.5 57.4

41.7 27.1

Possibility to pay an unexpected expenditure of EUR 300

11.5

34.7

2.3

56.1

69.7

45.7

1 or more times didn’t have food for children 1 or more times had no way cook 1 or more had no heat in the flat Household is in this (a lot) better ...versus relatives in another municipality

39.8 31.9 33.3 24.0

35.4 23.4 25.5 31.3

60.1 43.6 44.7 11.4

15.6 10.8 10.9 20.8

6.0 5.8 5.8 27.8

12.3 9.0 11.3 9.5

...versus neighbours on the street ...versus residents of part of the municipality ...versus residents of neighbouring municipality ...versus a common Slovak family

23.2 21.0 8.8 3.3

31.3 23.4 15.6 3.2

9.2 10.2 3.6 1.4

18.3 14.4 17.4 10.8

25.4 21.2 17.3 11.8

12.0 10.0 6.8 5.3

Enough income for basic needs (meals, clothing, housing) Possibility for entire household to leave on a week-long holiday

Note: The summary indicator for a household on the number of working members is counted from individually declared statuses of working (how many household members were declared as working).

hind them, obviously, should follow essential measures aimed at overcoming discrimination and breaking down other identification barriers and hurdles for a better position and strengthening of the position of the Roma population on the labour market.

The high share of long-term unemployment in the Roma population despite registration at the labour office indicates that from the viewpoint of the existing generally bad situation on the regional labour market and the low qualified prerequisites of a wide group of the Roma population for successful working on the labour market, obviously the existing instruments of support and help are not appropriate and not effective. Together with discrimination (on the labour market and possibly on the side of offices and institutions) they can contribute more to reinforcing barriers and hurdles of segregation on the labour market rather than breaking them down.

9.3.6. Impacts of exclusion from the labour market on the situation of households As is stated in the introduction of this chapter, a quality connection to the labour market is considered as the most important prerequisite for overcoming poverty. On one hand employment is a basic source of the income needed for extricating a household from material deprivation and exclusion, and conversely – the absence of work and weak job opportunities or the low quality of work increases the probability of households and their members falling into the risk of poverty. The previous parts described in detail the range and quality of connection of the Roma population to the labour market and its situation in comparison with the geographically close general population and between different Roma environments by type of settlement. The gener-

163

R E P O R T O N T H E L I V I N G CO N D I T I O N S O F R O MA H O U S E H O L D S I N S LO VA K I A 2010

ally very low employment of the Roma population was stated along with the high level and deep exclusion from the labour market – in the form of a large share of persons outside of economic activity or the huge level of unemployment.

The following part presents the consequences of exclusion from employment on the living conditions of Roma households. Selected indicators of the living situation for households without a working member are compared with those having a working member (one or more). An overall look at them and comparison with the same types of households from the geographically close general population is provided in Table 9.14. Also followed were indicators characterising housing conditions and household furnishings, the attitude regarding children studying at secondary school, subjective evaluation of the financial situation and covering of basic household expenditures, as well as classic indicators of the living standard in our society and the extreme material deprivation. The evaluation of one’s own living situation in comparison with other geographically near environments or the wider surroundings was supplemented by a set of indicators comparing households without a working member with those having one or more working members.46 Differences between Roma households without a working member and with a working member are already expressed in the conditions of living. While from households where no one worked 17.3% had excellent and good conditions for living and nearly 45% had bad or very bad ; from households with one working member this was 48.9% of good and 21.9% bad and very bad conditions. In the case of Roma households with more working members the mutual ration of good and bad conditions for living was even higher still: 59.1% to 12.2%.

In relation to the basic furnishings of a flat or house, the work of one member already raised the share of functioning furnishing for bathing and a flushing toilet twotimes (from 30% for Roma households without a working member to 60% in households with one working member); with Roma households having more working members this was still higher (over 70%). The share of Roma households with an automatic washing machine increased from 21.2% in those where no one worked, to two and a half times higher in households with one working member (and three and half time higher in households with more working members); with a telephone this involved an increase from 64.6 % by 20% (or by 30%); furnished with a computer grew five (seven) times; and having the Internet nearly eight-fold. With a working member and its multiplication the conditions for living and the furnishing of geographically close general

164

households improved, but the level was with all items for all three monitored groups of households incomparably higher than with the Roma. Living conditions and furnishings were in the end higher for the general households without a working member as for the Roma with two or more working members. Among general households without a working member nearly 80% had excellent and good conditions for living, while from Roma households with more members working this was less than 60%; with functioning bathing facilities the shares between these two groups 94.9% to 72.9%; with a functioning WC it was 92.1% to 73.3%. The mentioned principle did not apply only with the telephone, computer and Internet (working Roma households were better furnished with them than non-working general households); however, the mutually compared individual types of households came out better for the general population.

With a growing number of working members in Roma households support for children studying also increased.

Where no one worked less than 30% wanted children to continue in secondary school after finishing primary school, but from households with one working member this was more than 67%. For the geographically close general households support for secondary study of children was significantly stronger – going well over 80%.

Work experience of the household also increased satisfaction with the financial situation (from not quite 5% to 27.4% and 38.8%), it eased the covering of outlays for education of children at primary school (from 3% to 9.8% and 16.1%) and improved the evaluation of sufficient income for covering the costs of basic needs (from 3.3% to 22.1% and 42.8%). Already with one, but still more with two or more working members the share of Roma households grew meeting the living standard common in our society: chances improved for a holiday stay, quality food, dressing and for paying of unexpected expenditures from one’s own resources. But although in comparison with households without a working member the possibilities of covering basic needs and unexpected expenditures with grew incomparably the adding of working members, at the same time it’s necessary to emphasise that even for working households the shares of those meeting common living standards was not particularly high. So, for example, with the possibility of a week-long holiday the share of households increased from 0.2% in the group without a working member to 5.2% in the group with one working member and 10.2% in the group with more working; with meats each day from 13% to 37.5% and 53.1%; with new clothing and shoes each year from 3.3% to 29.2% and 38.8%; and with the capability of covering an unexpected expenditure of EUR 300 from 2.3% to 11.5% and 34.7%. In compar-

46 Detailed and overall analysis of indicators of living standard, financial situation and material deprivation of Roma households is presented in Chapter 6, and particularly Chapters 10 and 11.

R E P O R T O N T H E L I V I N G CO N D I T I O N S O F R O MA H O U S E H O L D S I N S LO VA K I A 2010

ison with the results for the geographically close general population the level achieve by Roma households with several members working was significantly lower (from general households with a working member from half to 70% met the standard).

A favourable trend with the coming of work to a household was also expressed with the tracking of extreme deprivation – Roma households with a working member experience this less. While in the group of Roma households where no one worked, up to 60% had at least occasional experience with the situation when they didn’t have food to feed their children, in the group with one working member this fell to beneath 40% and for the group with multiple working members to 35% (with experiences with insufficient possibilities for cooking and heating the share of the deprived dropped from 44%, down below one-third and to one-quarter). However, the measure of deprivation for working Roma households was still incomparably higher in comparison with the situation of the geographically close general households, where it moved roughly around the level of one-tenth and less.47 Households without a working member also evaluated their own living situation as worse in comparison with different defined surroundings, whether these were relatives in other municipalities, neighbours on the same street, cohabitants from the same quarter, residents of neighbouring municipalities or a common Slovak family. Work also improved the view on their own living situation, although an overall negative view of the current position greatly predominated. With these evaluated indicators more principle difference between Roma and geographically close general households were not expressed – the general population also looked on their living situation predominately as worse than that of relatives living elsewhere, neighbours or a common household in Slovakia.

A comparison of the living conditions of Roma households with a working member and without such a member pointed to a more favourable situation for households which have one or more members working.

At the same time nearly all of the monitored indicators had a better result for households with two or more working members versus those in which only one member worked. Similar associations are expressed also for the geographically close general population, individually measured values for the monitored indicators of living level, however, were often many times higher (or lower with indicators capturing unfavourable living conditions).

In some cases the resulting frequencies for the geographically close general households without a working household member were well higher even than for Roma

households with two or more working members. General households without a working member had, for example, a higher share of households with a favourable overall situation with living, households better furnished with basic long-term consumer goods or a lower measure of deprivation and extreme deficiencies than Roma households with multiple work experience.

The study data clearly confirmed that exclusion from the labour market increases the probability of the fall of such households into the risk of poverty, increases the danger of material deprivation and lowers the quality of life of their members. Roma households are in this regard, in comparison with the geographically close general significantly worse; in the end even a working wage in Roma households is not enough to overcome this huge lag in level of living.

Committing to the European Year for Combating Poverty and Social Exclusion (2010) the strategy Europe 2020 staked out in the scope of the main initiative of the European Platform Against Poverty the aim “to ensure economic, social and territorial cohesion, to raise awareness and recognise the fundamental rights of people experiencing poverty and social exclusion, enabling them to live in dignity and take an active part in society.” (Europe..., 2010, pg. 20). In regard to the depicted situation Slovakia as an EU member state will have to develop extraordinary great effort when ensuring the task “to define and apply measures focused on resolving the special circumstances of exceptionally endangered groups”, among which, in addition to families with one parent, minorities, people with disabilities and people without a home, Roma are also mentioned. And probably even the provision of work, which is also no small task, will not be enough for the overcoming the unfavourable living situation of the Roma population. Many additional support programmes of this type will be necessary.

9.4. Participation in activation programmes In general, active inclusion is perceive as a process of support for the integration of people who are outside of the labour market, and in this case also outside the provision of an adequate level of income and better access to services with the aim, so that a social protection policy leads to the mobilisation of people who are capable of working. According to the professional literature the general goal of activation is to strengthen economic independence and social integration through valid employment or earning activities, in place of unemployment

47 It is interesting that the level of deprivation was for the geographically close general population was highest in the group with one member working and not without anyone working, mainly for a lack of food for children and heating in a home. Only with the adding of a second and another working income did the situation of the household more significantly improve.

165

R E P O R T O N T H E L I V I N G CO N D I T I O N S O F R O MA H O U S E H O L D S I N S LO VA K I A 2010

Table 9.15 Roma population age 18+ years by work in an activation programme and type of settlement (in %) Segregated Yes No Individuals total

Separated 47.3 52.7 100.0

Diffused 46.1 53.9 100.0

Total 46.3 53.7 100.0

46.6 53.4 100.0

Question: Have you ever worked in an activation programme?

Note: Only for individuals older than 18 years. Non-responses are not included (2.5%).

and an income benefit which is often tied with social exclusion (Eichhorst – Konle-Seidl, 2008: 5).

Slovakia enrolled in active inclusion or active integration in the scope of its strategy of social inclusion within the OMK. Attention is devoted to it in the National Report on Strategies of Social Protection and Social Inclusion for the Years 2008 – 2010, where it says: “It is essential that activation elements in the system of assistance in material need are directed at supporting the philosophy of active inclusion.48 Assistance in material need and protection should have the nature of preventive measures and temporary solutions only in the case of those whose potential can be activated. For this it is necessary that alongside social protection systems, active inclusion in society is intensively supported by means of creating job opportunities supporting the return to the labour market, where this means initiating in particular programmes for supporting employment growth, strengthening human resources and capacities for application in the labour market (including support for education and preparation for the labour market), because education and paid employment are the most efficient prevention against the risks of poverty. For achieving this objective the Slovak Republic has some years now been using not only its structural reforms for supporting economic growth, but also a broad spectrum of programmes for supporting employment. These have included also programmes aimed at active labour market measures supporting disadvantaged groups of jobseekers, and which the SR is successfully implementing in a broad scope also by using the respective financial instruments from the European Community.” (National..., 2008: 10).

The empirical study carried out was also partially devoted to this subject; the overall and current work in an activation programme and educational courses was surveyed, along with interest in and deciding about placement into the programme, period of involvement, as well as associations with employment and economic standing. The following chapter presents selected results regarding this specific subject.

166

9.4.1. Total experience with work in an activation programme According to the study data less than half of the surveyed Roma population – exactly 46% — at some time took part in an activation programme. From the viewpoint of type of settlement no differences at all appeared in the measure of overall involvement in activation programmes; in all environments the share of experience with activation work was almost completely equal (Table 9.12).

The remainder of the set (53.4%) consisted of adult respondents who had still never worked in an activation programme. An absolute majority of those not yet connected with participation in an activation programme had not even applied for one (more than 70% of them), and approximately 15% (predominately living diffused) said that they wanted to join but it wasn’t possible because the same programme was not available in the vicinity. Only 7% of those inactive had at some time applied for social activation.49 Half of those applicants stated that their request was refused; the other half gave a different reason such as, for example, they are still waiting for an answer, the programme ended, or some other possibility; only two respondents said that they left the programme voluntarily. Among the reasons for refusing an application,50 the most common given was a lack of space due to the great interest; in second place was unfulfilled conditions for the chance of connecting (not in material need), and in third place was a formal barrier (lacked permanent residence, another member of the family was already assigned in the activation work and the like). Very small numbers were involved, however; other reasons occurred only occasionally (offices don’t like me; connections with placement into the programme; I didn’t go to work, etc.).

The level of total connection of the Roma population to activation work at some point during their adult life was disproportionately higher as opposed to the geographically close general population (Graph 9.32). Despite

48 The material defines it thus: Active integration (=active inclusion) people most distant from the labour market is based on the integration strategy built on three pillars: sufficient support for overtaking social exclusion, an approach for inclusion on the labour market, better access to quality services (National..., 2008: 10).

49 Numerically this was a very small group (n = 66), in which mainly segregated and also separated Roma individuals were found.

50 In total only 34 respondents with a refused application for participation in an activation programme.

R E P O R T O N T H E L I V I N G CO N D I T I O N S O F R O MA H O U S E H O L D S I N S LO VA K I A 2010

Graph 9.32 Roma population age 18+ years working at some time in an activation programme – comparison with the geographically close general population and with year 2005 (in %) 0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

37.2

Roma population

46.6

Geographically close general population

2005

11.1

2010

5.1

Question: Have you ever worked in an activation programme?

Note: Only for individuals older than 18 years. The share of positive responses to the question is presented only after exclusion of non-respondents (from the Roma set 2.5% and from the general 2.8%).

the geographically close habitation, only 5.1% of the general population had at some time taken part in activation work; that is less than one-ninth of the population age 18+ years. In comparison with year 2005 the share of those experienced with an activation programme in the Roma population increased by nearly 10% (from 37.2% in 2005 to 46.6% in 2010), while for the geographically close general population the opposite shift occurred – their share fell (from 11.1% to 5.1%). According to results, it’s as if activation work was specifically intended only for the Roma population.

A comparison by sex showed (Graph 9.33) that higher participation in activation work occurred with Roma men – on average by 10%. From the whole of Roma men age 18 years and older 51.5% had at some point worked in an activation programme and from women this was 41.5%. The largest gender difference according to experience with activation work emerged from those living in segregated communities, where it exceeded 17%. Among segregated Roma men 56% had worked in an activation programme at some time, and from women in the same type of settlements this was

not quite 39%. The control set of the geographically close general population did not show any large difference between women and men.

From the viewpoint of age this experience, completely logically, was most frequent in the middle age categories (Graph 9.34). Among those members of the Roma population age 18-29 years the share of those who ha participate at some time in activation work represented on average 36%, and in the 30-39 years age group their representation grew to 57%, and in the age group 40-49 years it exceeded 62%. After these age limits the share of activation began to drop: to 51% among those age 5059 years and 12.5% in the case of those age 60 years and older. The described “run” according to age was for the most part general – it was copied in all compared environments of the Roma population and the general set.

A glimpse at the lifetime participation in activation programme work in the perspective of current economic standing at the time of the study confirmed the most experience in the unemployed (Graph 9.35).

From the entire Roma population age 18+ years identified with a status of unemployed51 the share of

Graph 9.33 Overall participation of the Roma population age 18+ years in work in an activation programme by sex and type of settlement – comparison with the geographically close general population (in %) 0

10

20

30

40

50

60

49.0 49.7

Men

56.0 5.8 43.7 41.9 38.9

Women 4.6 Diffused

Separated

Segregated

Geographically close general population

Question: Have you ever worked in an activation programme?

Note: Only for individuals older than 18 years. The share of positive responses to the question is presented only after exclusion of non-respondents (from the Roma set 2.5% and from the general 2.8%).

167

R E P O R T O N T H E L I V I N G CO N D I T I O N S O F R O MA H O U S E H O L D S I N S LO VA K I A 2010

Graph 9.34 Total participation of the Roma population age 18+ years in work in an activation programme by age and type of settlement – comparison with the geographically close general population (in %) 0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

33.9 49.7 56.0

18-29 years 5.5

63.5 53.6 55.2

30-39 years 6.8

62.9 62.6 61.5

40-49 years 9.8 43.4 55.4 53.9

50-59 years 3.5 6.7 14.1 17.1

60+ years 0.9 Diffused

Separated

Segregated

Geographically close general population

Question: Have you ever worked in an activation programme?

Note: Only for individuals older than 18 years. The share of positive responses to the question is presented only after exclusion of non-respondents (from the Roma set 2.5% and from the general 2.8%).

Graph 9.35 Total participation of in an activation programme by current economic status and type of settlement – comparison with the geographically close general population (in %) 0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

33.6 55.8 57.6

Working 2.7

68.7 64.3

Unemployed

69.1 44.4 25.8

Outside the labour market

20.8 20.2 2.1 Diffused

Separated

Segregated

Geographically close general population

Question: Have you ever worked in an activation programme?

Note: Only for individuals older than 18 years. The graph shows the share of positive responses to the question after exclusion of non-respondents for the three basic groups in relation to the labour market as defined in the VZPS methodology.

168

R E P O R T O N T H E L I V I N G CO N D I T I O N S O F R O MA H O U S E H O L D S I N S LO VA K I A 2010

those who at some time worked in an activation programme surpassed 67%; among the unemployed representing the geographically close general population this was 44 %. But those currently working also had experience with activation work: the average for the Roma population was nearly one-half (49%), in the case of the general this was not quite 3%. For the group outside of the labour market (the economically inactive at the time of the study) the average of activation achieved more than 22% among the Roma, from the general population this was only 2%.

Connecting the Roma population to work in an activation programme was therefore expanded in all groups defined by their position on the labour market, the most experiences of this type, however, was with currently unemployed but also among working Roma were many past participants in this programme –especially residents of separated and segregated settlements. The difference versus the general population for all three groups of economic activity was found to be huge. But as was shown in the previous sections of this chapter, which were devoted to the measure of unemployment or employment and the overall position on the labour market, despite the broad connection of large groups of the Roma population to activation work, it appears as if the specific measure of an active policy of the labour market for this target group did not have a visible impact on their permanent employment.

9.4.2. Current participation in an activation programme How the situation looked from the viewpoint of current participation in activation work is presented in more detail in Table 9.16. The empirical data showed that not all respondents who had experience with activation work during their adult life had connected to such a programme during the past year. Approximately one-third of the Roma set of activation workers had not been programme participants for a long time; however, two-thirds were involved in the work during 2010, when data was collected. And the same such share emerged in all three compared Roma environments. For the general population the proportion of past and current participants approximately one to four-fifths, that is, that is there were more current participants among them.52 In rela-

tion to the period of activation during 2010, long-term participants predominated. A total of 41.4% of them were a part of an activation programme for more than half a year (of these approximately half was activated throughout the whole year), and 27.2% gave activation for a shorter period of the year (only 7.2% was three months or shorter).Quarter-year and shorter participants of the programme were mostly among those living separated (more than 10% versus not quite 4% in the diffused) and year-long again with segregated (nearly 25% versus not quite 20% in the separated).

Among the group of respondents who were activated at least for some period in 2010, an absolute majority also worked in the month previous to the period of the survey.53 This was nearly 77% on average for the relevant Roma population (a similar share was also found among the newly activated members of the geographically close general population), but a relatively large difference was expressed between Roma living diffused and segregated on one hand and residents of separated settlements on the other. While the share of last month’s participants in activation work from diffused settlements exceeded 84% and from segregated 80%, from the relevant residents of separated settlements this was nearly 20% less (66.3%).

According to the period of activation it seems as if the opportunity for participation in activation programme work was less accessible for Roma living in separated parts of municipalities; they had the least year-long and the most quarterly and the shortest period of participation in the programme and also significantly fewer of them took part in activation work during the month previous to the survey. This could indicate fewer opportunities for working in activation programmes in municipalities with Roma communities of this type or a higher demand for activation work than is offered in these settlements.54 To a certain measure the reasons for current inactivation tell the story regarding the lack of opportunities for activation in separated settlements, but also in segregated settlements. For the Roma population the most frequent reason was “the programme ended”; on average this reason got 31% and for segregated settlements nearly 44% of responses from relevant respondents. With the general population this reason was the weakest, along with formal barriers to participation (not quite 6%), the majority of them did not continue in activation work because they found work (38.9%). Find-

51 The definition of current economic status according to the VZPS methodology is used here, not the declared standing.

52 Let us recall that the group with experience with activation for the geographically close general population had only a small number, therefore, the presented percentages are only informational.

53 Data collection in 2010 ran from the end of November to the middle of December; thus responses obtained pertain to the month of October or November 2010.

54 Obviously, here many other factors could come into play, like for example, the share of new entrants onto the labour market (school leavers or after a period of economic inactivity), the range of unemployment and its duration and the like; but the number of individual for the subsets was not sufficient for deeper analysis of them.

169

R E P O R T O N T H E L I V I N G CO N D I T I O N S O F R O MA H O U S E H O L D S I N S LO VA K I A 2010

Table 9.16 Current activation of the Roma population age 18+ years – comparison of subsets and with the geographically close general population (in %) Roma population Segregated Separated (n=316) (n=319)

Diffused (n=303)

Geographically close general population (n= 67)

Total (n=891)

Period of participation in AP since start of year**

How many months were you a participant in an activation programme since the start of the year?

Not at all 1-3 months 4-6 months 7-10 months Whole year* Work in AP for the last month**

31.2 31.3 31.6 31.4 7.1 10.4 3.8 7.2 22.5 18.8 18.8 20.0 14.6 19.7 24.4 19.7 24.6 19.8 21.4 21.7 Did you work during the past month in a social activation programme?

(Presented share of positive responses for all those in activation in 2010 in %.)

Yes No Reasons for current inactivation The programme ended Found a job Family reasons Poor health, Too old Formal reasons Exclusion from the programme Decided to leave Number of hours worked per month 20 hours or less 21-39 hours 40 hours 41-79 hours 80 hours 81 or more hours Provider of activation work

22.9 14.3 17.1 5.7 40.0

80.6 66.3 84.3 76.8 77.8 19.4 33.7 15.7 23.2 22.2 Why don’t you work now in a social activation programme (only one main reason)? (% of those who didn’t work in an AP in 2010 at all or in the previous month; n = 429) 43.9 32.4 18.5 31.4 7.1 14.2 12.0 11.6 12.2 16.2 16.7 15.3 16.3 18.9 25.9 20.3 7.1 7.5 9.2 7.9 13.3 9.5 11.1 11.0 — 1.4 6.5 2.5 How many hours for the last month did you work to obtain an activation grant? (% of those who worked in an AP during the previous month; n = 529)

5.6 38.9 11.1 27.8 5.6 11.1 —

3.0 0.8 1.3 1.7 4.8 7.5 18.4 14.3 13.3 14.3 58.7 37.6 56.5 51.6 57.1 10.5 8.8 14.3 11.4 — 19.5 31.2 11.7 20.1 19.0 0.8 3.2 1.9 1.9 4.8 Who organises / operates the activation work in which you took part last month? (% of those who worked in an AP during the previous month; n = 529)

Town, municipality NGO Place of doing activation work

100.0 — Where did you do the activation work? (% of those who worked in an AP during the previous month; n = 529)

95.2 4.8

In the municipality of residence In a nearby municipality Other Evaluation of work in AP**

99.0 0.7 0.3 Do you think that work in activation activities increased your chances of finding permanent employment?

95.2 4.8 —

Certainly yes Maybe yes Maybe no Certainly no Not given

2.4 11.8 22.1 36.7 27.0

Áno Nie

70.5 29.5

Current opportunity for activation in a municipality

2.7 1.7 2.3 9.2 15.7 12.2 25.2 22.4 23.2 42.9 39.9 39.8 20.1 20.3 22.4 Is there an opportunity at present to get involved in activation work in your town/community?

72.4 27.6

79.2 20.8

73.9 26.1

2.6 2.6 28.2 35.9 30.8

93.9 6.1

Note: Only for individuals older than 18 years who responded to the question. Because the group with experience with activation work from the geographically close general population had only a small number, the percentages given are only informative. *Since the collection of data ran in November and December, answers 11 and 12 months from the start of the year are calculated in the “whole year” category. **AP = activation programme.

170

R E P O R T O N T H E L I V I N G CO N D I T I O N S O F R O MA H O U S E H O L D S I N S LO VA K I A 2010

ing work as a reason for not participating in an activation programme was for the relevant Roma population up to four times smaller, with those living segregated this reason received only 7%. From among the other reasons the most common given was bad health and old age, family reasons and exclusion from the programme.

Their frequency among the Roma and the general population did not differ very much.

In relation to the number of hours worked for obtaining an activation benefit for the last month, the common number was 40 hours. More than half of Roma participants in the programme gave such a volume of time and from the geographically close general population this was more than 57% of participants. The second most frequently given time was 80 hours; approximately one-fifth of the relevant Roma and general populations participated in such a regime. Shorter time of activation was given more often in segregated settlements and the longest worked period was again in separated settlements.

The providers of activation work were for Roma exclusively a town or a municipality, while for general participants of an activation programme non-profit organisations were also involved in this most widespread subject (but only a 4.8% share). The study did not find any other possibilities for AP providers. Domination was also expressed by the location of performing the activation work – for 99% this was in the place of their residence. Only a few individuals from among Roma respondents gave another location, and among AP participants representing the general population this was also less than 5%.

Evaluation of the work in the scope of activation activities from the viewpoint of increasing the chances of finding permanent work did not come out very positively. Only 14.5% of Roma participants and 5.2% of the geographically close general population gave a positive response. The general population expressed overall to these questions more uncertain responses (nearly 31% did not respond), the share of negative responses was equal for both compared populations and very high: 63% and 64%. A total of 74% of the relevant Roma population currently saw the availability of a connection to activation work in their municipality, and in the general population this was 20% more.

And current participation in an activation work programme pointed at the relatively broad connection of the Roma population to this programme, among which long-term participants predominated. On the other hand, it’s as if the lower availability of such work was expressed in separated and segregated environments. Nonparticipation in the programme for the reason that the programme ended was mentioned particularly in these two environments. Participation in an activation programme led only rarely in Roma participants to finding

work, the subjective evaluation of this programme also ended up in a similar spirit – a negative opinion predominated for the contribution of activation work toward increasing the chance for permanent employment. Activation work also does not contribute to the transgressing local space, mainly the organisation of the municipality or town, and is performed in the place of residence. At the time of conducting the study the possibility of connecting to activation work in a municipality end up being a great deal stronger from the side of the general population than for the Roma population.

9.4.3. Further education of the Roma population with finished vocational training Another method of activation in the interest of searching for a job and successfully connecting to the labour market are training and requalification courses. According to valid legislation school attendance is mandatory in Slovakia up to the age of 16. Up to this age all children should be taking part in the educational system. All respondents over age 16 years who had already finished their education, that is, who were not pupils or students, were asked about participation in trainings or educational courses. Table 9.17 brings an overview of the basic aspects of such participation.

As follows from the table, only a very small part of them at some point took part in some training or courses. From the Roma population this was 8.5% (in segregated and separated more than one-tenth) and from the geographically close general population only 3.4%. Participation from the start of the year was lower: 3.7% of the relevant Roma population and only 2.5% of the general.

From Roma respondents who took part in a course the majority listed a labour office as the organiser (nearly 86%), and then with a large gap a town or municipality; other possibilities were only occasional. The structure of attendees of training for the general population was, according to organisers, completely different: nearly 60% stated an employer, a third gave the labour office and one-tenth secured the course by themselves. By length of duration educational courses over 20 days long predominated in the Roma population (nearly 60% on average), general participants gave shorter duration – more than half of them said shorter than 10 days. In regard to receiving a benefit, not quite half of Roma participants said that they received a benefit for education (from the general only 12%), three-fifths declared as receivers of a benefit for travel expenditures (from general participants only 17%), in regard to accommodation and meals in both compared groups more than 28% declared they had received them. Other benefits, including a benefit for child care, were received only sporadically (4%).

171

R E P O R T O N T H E L I V I N G CO N D I T I O N S O F R O MA H O U S E H O L D S I N S LO VA K I A 2010

Table 9.17 Additional education of the Roma population age 17+ years outside of the school system – comparison of subsets and with the geographically close general population (in %) Roma population Segregated Separated (n=628) (n=658) Participation in training courses Some time at all From the start of the year Attempt at participation Organiser of the course Labour office Town, municipality I myself NGO Employer Duration of the course 3 days and less 4-10 days 11-20 days 21-30 days 31 days and more Completed in set period Yes No I don’t know Offer of work after completion of course Yes

Diffused (n=626)

Total (n=1912)

Geographically close general population (n=794)

Have you ever taken part in training or a requalification course through the labour office?

Have you taken part in some training or requalification course since the start of this year?

10.1 6.7 6.3

10.7 6.3 8.5 3.4 2.6 1.9 3.7 2.5 5.8 3.3 5.5 1.6 Who provided or offered the course or training?

89.7 75.0 90.9 85.7 31.6 10.3 18.7 — 10.7 — — — — — 10.5 — 6.3 — 1.8 — — — 9.1 1.8 57.9 How many days did the course last (with several list the longest?

— 7.1 9.1 4.1 33.2 8.3 35.7 27.3 20.4 22.2 16.7 14.2 27.3 18.4 5.6 58.3 14.3 27.3 38.8 16.8 16.7 28.5 9.0 18.3 22.2 Did you finish the educational course in the set time period?

50.0 88.2 66.7 62.0 90.0 4.8 — 16.7 5.6 — 45.2 11.8 16.7 32.4 10.0 Did the labour office offer you a job after you finished the training or requalification?

5.3 25.0 36.4 15.4 14.3

Note: Only for individuals age 17+ who are outside of the school system and responded to the questions.

The majority of attendees completed the training in the regular time period, but this response was many times more common on the side of the general population than with the Roma. It is interesting that nearly one-third of Roma participants in a course (more than 45% among those segregated) gave the answer “I don’t know”. With an unfinished course (only less than 6%) only one other reason was given: “it didn’t work out for me”. After completion of a course the labour offered work, according to subjective declaration, to more than 15% of Roma graduates, from the geographically close general population this was approximately an equal share – 14.3%. Thus, those attending courses who did not receive a job offer from offices formed an absolute majority. This involved primarily residents of segregated settlements, from which up to 95% of graduates did not receive a job offer. Among the reasons, in first place was the response that there is no work in the region, which was given by more than half of the relevant respondents. The second most common was the response “I didn’t request them”; from the other possibilities the following two repeatedly occurred: “there are others here whom the labour office gives preference to” and “because of my ethnic origin”.55

172

In relation to the evaluation of a course from the viewpoint of help with finding work, the answer that the course didn’t help at all predominated. From Roma attendees approximately one-third gave this response, while from the geographically close general population this was only one-tenth. More than half, however, were unable to respond or didn’t want to respond to this evaluation question. Residents of segregated and separated settlements saw courses as least useful.

Overall, the participation of the Roma population in training and courses intended for individual with a finished education was not shown to be very widespread.

And also that they participated in some similar type of educational, in the majority did not help them find work.

According to the data obtained regarding some possibilities for connecting with activation programmes, it seems as if the dominating way of activating the Roma population was activation work.

If we accept the assumption that an effective activation policy is measured by the returning of the unemployed to the labour market and providing them with permanently sustainable independence from social benefits, the obtained empirical data indicates that Slovakia APTP is not

55 Involved very small numbers (for the Roma population n = 54 individuals and for the general n = 11 individuals).

R E P O R T O N T H E L I V I N G CO N D I T I O N S O F R O MA H O U S E H O L D S I N S LO VA K I A 2010

very effective in the case of the Roma population. As is presented in studies from abroad, the effects of APTP everywhere in Europe vary according to the target groups – individual measures bring with some groups the desired result, with others not (Eichhorst – Konle-Seidl, 2008: 24). In the case of Roma segregated communities, but in a significant measure with separated, it seems as if this doesn’t work. To these groups of population the entire package of APTP measures and programmes offer only a limited circle; furthermore, despite the broad participation in activation work, they remain further without permanent employment and on social benefits.

The problem could be that APTP is set generally, universally and the Roma community would require a specific type of measures. APTP is not a cheap and not even an easy experience; if it doesn’t lead to a decrease in unemployment and doesn’t help with the integration of vulnerable groups, then it is not suitable for vulnerable groups. It’s as if it’s not enough for marginalised groups with a great distance from the labour market. In order for these groups to achieve sustainable employment, they probably require specific help. Furthermore, APTP flexible and suitable for individual target groups should have a broader perspective – including ties, for example, to the educational system and the like. As several authors have emphasised, “work first” is not enough to achieve a more permanent working career on the labour market (Eichhorst – Konle-Seidl, 2008; Hanzelová – Bellan, 2009). Slovakia should learn from the functioning of APTP thus far (perform an analysis and evaluation from the viewpoint of different target groups; subsequently proceed to predefined individual programmes and measures, including the defining of target groups and instruments), i.e. to learn from failure and to determine, why they don’t work with these most vulnerable groups.

Conclusions The chapter on the labour market has tried to bring closer and to monitor in detail the link between employment and unemployment (a more general result on the labour market) on one hand and with the vulnerable Roma population on the other. Its intention was to analyse in detail the influential factors on the final standing of Roma women and men on the labour market. On the basis of the results obtained and partial analysis of individual indicators which gradually identified problem places, recommendations are sometimes offered in the interest of better setting up and implementing policies focused on this target group.

Study data from the field of characteristic standing of the Roma population on the labour market brought a number of general conclusions. The measured level of unemployment of the Roma population is significantly

higher (up to seven times higher) than in the surveyed geographically close general population; on the basis of self-declaration of unemployment this even more.

Higher unemployment and lower employment in the case of subjective self-reporting as values calculated by the methodology of selected survey of the labour force indicates that for part of the Roma population the absence of employment is synonymous with unemployment. But this could also indicate the broader connection of the Roma population to informal segments of the labour market.

Employment of the Roma population in a relatively large volume takes place outside of the official labour market and also in the framework of the official is made up of a large part outside of standard forms of employment (short duties, seasonal or casual work, self-employment and the like). The share of classic full-time employment was significantly lower as in the geographically close general population. Within the scope of classic employment, less qualified work predominated in which it can be assumed that also with low wages. If Roma also obtain a job, this predominately involves low quality work and weak social and job protections. All of this influences the source and level of income or Roma households (see Chapters 10 and 11).

Upon determining the vast and deep exclusion of the Roma population from the labour market the main reason expressed was insufficient employment opportunities, which for a great part follow from the lack of qualifications for the needs of the labour market, and could also be the result of discrimination and unequal treatment. Ethnic membership was repeatedly shown to be a strong differentiating agent – the differences versus the general population were huge in many indicators despite the geographically nearby environment. Among other differentiating agents it is necessary to mention sex and to a certain measure type of settlement; to a certain measure because indicators worsened with the level of spatial exclusion, unfavourable values (high unemployment and low employment), however, were found in all three compare Roma environments.

Large differences were also recorded on the basis of education and age; age, however, did not play such a strong role with employment or unemployment of the Roma population as in the case of the general population. A comparison of unemployment of the youngest and the adult population came out for the general set two-times higher on the side of the youngest and with the Roma population the measure of unemployment was approximately the same level from entry to the labour market throughout an adult lifetime.

Education emerged from the analysis as a strong differentiation agent. But the “benefit” of higher education which is reflected in the resulting standing on the labour market, played a less significant role as with the general population. The Roma probably face significant

173

R E P O R T O N T H E L I V I N G CO N D I T I O N S O F R O MA H O U S E H O L D S I N S LO VA K I A 2010

difficulties with searching for qualified work also with achieving higher education; unemployment of the Roma is very high also with higher degrees of education.

And in terms of gender, the unemployment of women was lower than with the general than in the Roma population, but for the Roma set for both sexes the measure of unemployment was well higher than the average for the general population. Despite the high share of Roma women outside of the labour market (and reciprocally the smaller measure of economic activity), they also predominately and more often end up in the category of the unemployed as a labour force (and comparisons with Roma men and women from the general population). This is the opposite with employment – this is for women of both compared populations lower than for men, but in the case of Roma women the lag behind men is much greater (up to half ).

Not only women from Slovakia but also women from the control set of the geographically close general population lagged far behind the Lisbon goals for the year 2010 (70% total employment and 60% for women), in the case of Roma women, this involved a radical distance behind the goal – in fact on and order six-fold (a real of 10% versus ideal of 60%).

The recorded differences in the overall economic activities are in comparison with five years age only very small; the share of working further remained only very small in the surveyed Roma population, and conversely, the share of unemployed again very high, despite the number of programmes declared as support for Roma employment. The year-on-year changes are for the surveyed part of the Roma community only very small, testimony of which is the ineffective existing programmes in relation to the given goal.

The empirical data showed that not only the resulting effect of activities of labour offices in the form of the employment situation of the targeted group but also the subjective evaluation of their activities and the possibilities for help from their side emerged as insufficient. Indicators of unemployment, the effectiveness of formal help an experience with unfavourable experiences on the labour market, many of which could have a discriminatory character, are likewise included into a broad group of indicators confirming the fact that exclusion on the basis of habitation or place of residence is still significantly worsens the overall unfavourable position of the Roma population within the geographic space. Thus, not only can the existence of a general disadvantage of the Roma ethnicity in relation to the labour market and employment be stated, but also its escalation for the situation of separation and especially segregation in the geographic space.

174

One of the primary assumptions and an integral component of programmes focused on overcoming the exclusion of the Roma population from the labour market should therefore also be the resolution of exclusion based on habitation; behind them, obviously, should follow essential measures aimed at overcoming discrimination and breaking down other identification barriers and hurdles for a better position and strengthening of the position of the Roma population on the labour market. The high share of long-term unemployment in the Roma population, despite registration at the labour office, indicates that from the viewpoint of the existing generally bad situation on the regional labour market and the low qualified prerequisites of a wide group of the Roma population for successful working on the labour market, obviously the existing instruments of support and help are not appropriate and not effective. Together with discrimination (on the labour market and possibly on the side of offices and institutions) they can contribute more to reinforcing barriers and hurdles of segregation on the labour market rather than breaking them down.

A comparison of the living conditions of Roma households with a working member and without such a member pointed to a more favourable situation for households which have one or more members working.

At the same time nearly all of the monitored indicators had a better result for households with two or more working members versus those in which only one member worked. The study data clearly confirmed that exclusion from the labour market increases the probability of such households falling into the risk of poverty, increases the danger of material deprivation and lowers the quality of life of their members. Roma households are in this regard, in comparison with the geographically close general population, significantly worse, and in the end even a working wage in Roma households is not enough to overcome this huge lag in level of living.

The strategy Europe 2020 staked out in the scope of the main initiative of the European Platform Against Poverty the aim “to ensure economic, social and territorial cohesion, to raise awareness and recognise the fundamental rights of people experiencing poverty and social exclusion, enabling them to live in dignity and take an active part in society” (Europe..., 2010, pg. 20). In regard to the depicted situation of living conditions of Roma households Slovakia as an EU member state will have to develop extraordinary great effort. In addition to searching for possibilities for providing jobs, which is no small task, for the overcoming the unfavourable living situation of the Roma population many additional support programmes of this type will be necessary.

R E P O R T O N T H E L I V I N G CO N D I T I O N S O F R O MA H O U S E H O L D S I N S LO VA K I A 2010

BOX 9.1: ECONOMIC ACTIVITY AN THE NUMBER OF WORKING AND ECONOMICALLY INACTIVE WOMEN AND MEN IN SLOVAKIA For Slovakia the common departure of women from the labour market and their inclusion among the economically inactive is a long-term characteristic. This can be seen primarily from the lower measure of economic activity of women versus men, which achieved a record minimum during the crisis year of 2009 – only 50.3%. Practically, this means that from all women in the Slovak Republic age 15 years and older, only half belong among the labour force (they were working or unemployed; the other half is made up of women outside of economic activity; every other woman in Slovakia age 15+ years was economically inactive. In the survey from the following year 2010 the difference in the measure of economic activity of women and men in Slovakia was on a level of 17 points (men 67.8% and women 50.8%), versus year 2005 this involve a decrease in both groups (by 0.7% for men and 0.5% for women).

Measure of economic activity and economic inactivity of women and men by type (2000 – 2010, in thous.)

Men - Measure of EA Women – Measure of EA Number of men Total Students learners Pensioners At home On parental leave Discouraged Work disability Other econ. inact.

Number of women Total Students. learners Pensioners At home On parental leave Discouraged Work disability Other econ. inact.

2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 68.6 69.2 68.5 68.4 68.5 68.4 68.2 67.7 68.3 68.1 67.8 52.6 53.0 52.6 52.9 52.5 51.3 50.7 50.5 51.1 50.3 50.8 654.0 219.1 395.6 2.5 1.1 6.2 19.5 5.2

646.7 216.0 390.5 1.4 0.8 6.9 17.5 7.9

660.8 229.1 383.5 2.8 0.4 8.0 20.9 11.3

661.9 242.7 374.1 3.0 0.4 4.6 21.4 13.2

668.7 246.9 373.2 4.3 0.1 2.8 26.4 13.7

676.4 259.3 369.2 2.9 0.4 4.3 23.2 15.6

687.2 254.5 373.3 4.7 0.6 6.8 28.1 19.2

699.9 259.2 379.2 8.4 0.2 8.4 30.6 13.9

691.2 258.3 377.0 14.8 0.1 7 27.8 6.2

700.7 262.2 382.5 15.1 0.4 6.4 30.8 3.4

711.0 260.1 392.2 13.1 0.7 6.4 34.3 4.1

1067.1 215.9 6710 90.3 55.1 4.1 21.9 4.5

1067.0 222.6 666.1 86.8 54.1 4.3 22.0 6.8

1077.1 235.3 655.7 93.1 49.5 6.0 24.5 9.1

1070.1 248.2 644.7 90.8 48.0 2.7 26.0 8.0

1092.6 245 655.9 97.7 53.6 2.3 30.9 5.5

1128.7 254.6 656.3 109.0 64.0 3.7 30.5 7.8

1152.9 257.6 661.0 114.1 66.2 6.5 33.4 14.1

1160.0 263.1 659.7 117.1 64.4 6.7 33.7 15.2

1154.1 274.4 658.3 106.7 68.3 5.3 32.7 6.7

1179.0 281.5 661.5 108.5 76.6 5.8 42.2 2.8

1171.8 275.2 659.9 111.2 74.3 5.1 43.7 2.4

Source: Slovstat Database. Bratislava, Statistical Office of the Slovak Republic 2011

Women and men at home and on parental leave (2000 – 2010, in thous.)

111.2

108.5

106.7

74.3

76.6

64.0

53.6

48.0

49.5

60

54.1

55.1

80

66.2

109.0

97.7

90.8

93.1

86.8

90.3

120 100

114.1

140

Women – parental leave

68.3

Women – at home 117.1

Men – parental leave

64.4

Men – at home

13.1 0.7

15.1 0.4

14.8 0.1

8.4 0.2

4.7 0.6

2.9 0.4

3.0 0.4

2.8 0.4

1.4 0.8

2.5 1.1

20

4.3 0.1

40

0 2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

2007

2008

2009

2010

Source: Slovstat Database. Bratislava, Statistical Office of the Slovak Republic 2011

175

R E P O R T O N T H E L I V I N G CO N D I T I O N S O F R O MA H O U S E H O L D S I N S LO VA K I A 2010

The difference is also expressed with comparisons of the entire number of economically inactive men and women. In 2010 Slovakia had 711 thousand economically inactive men and up to 1,171.8 thousand women; women made up 62.2% of the economically inactive. The overbalance of women is indicated in almost all groups of the inactive, the largest excess, however, was achieved in pensioners and those on parental leave. Female pensioners are nearly double males (392.2 thous. men and 659.9 thous. women), which is a consequence of the different demographically higher and early morbidity of men and the higher expected lifespan of women, but also the last pension system, which defined the retirement age as earlier for women and its additional lowering for each child born. Reform of the system in 2004 meant, among others, a shift in the age of retirement and its simplification for men and women to 62 years. For men this meant an extension of their working life by 2 years and in the case of many groups of women by up to 8 years.

But as the graph shows, the largest difference in the number of women and men has long been with the status “on parental leave” and “at home”. In relation to parental leave intended for the care of a small child, although access to it is equal for both parents in Slovakia, women almost exclusively draw it: in 2010 this was 74.3 thous. women and only 0.7 thous. men; the share of men reached only 0.9%. Up to 111.2 thous. women and 13.1 thous. men had the status of a person at home in 2010, which meant the share of men was 10.5% (Filadelfiová, 2007, 2010a, 2010b; Filadelfiová – Bútorová, 2011).

Development in the number of working women and men (2000 – 2010, in thous.)

Women

976.6

983.1

1,010.3

1,035.6

1,070.0

1,039.4

1,033.0

1,284.5

1,326.4

1,321.6

1,291.1

1,233.0

1,193.7 987.5

1,177.1

1,156.8 970.2

1,000.00

1,145.8 977.9

1,200.00

1,137.3 964.4

1,400.00

1,363.7

Men 1,600.00

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

2007

2008

2009

2010

800.00 600.00 400.00 200.00 0.00

Source: Slovstat Database. Bratislava, Statistical Office of the Slovak Republic 2011

In regard to those working in the Slovak Republic: for men in 2008 a long-term growth trend in the number of working reversed, for women a decline was also recorded, despite the overall significantly lower number in comparison with men. In 2010 there were 1,284.5 thousand working men in Slovakia and 1,033.0 thousand working women; women made up 44.6% of all working women. However, as opposed to the state in 2005 the numbers for both groups was higher (by 4% more of working men and by 5% more of working women).

BOX 9.2: NON-STANAR FORMS OF WORK IN SLOVAKIA – SELF-EMPLOYMENT AND SHORTENED WORKING TIME In Slovakia the representation of women among entrepreneurs is permanently lower. Despite the moderate growth tendency the share of women up to the year 2008 was in the scope of entrepreneurs with employees only 23.4% and for entrepreneurs without employees 25.1%.

In the crisis year of 2009 the representation of women increased significantly (by 0.7% among entrepreneurs with employees and 2.8% for entrepreneurs without employees).In the year the economic crisis culminated Slovakia achieved the highest number and share of women entrepreneurs in its history. Therefore, doubts exist about whether in this context the mentioned growth can be regarded as the actual economic position of women in Slovakia and their free choice; employers could have requested the transfer of their employees to working on a business license, also so-called anti-crisis measures of the government trying to reduce the rapid growth of unemployment in this way could have supported the establishing of business licenses (Cviková ed., 2010a; 2010b).

Such an assumption also supports the fact that immediately in the following year of 2010 the number of entrepreneurs decreased by 6 thousand and the data for the first quarter of 2011 suggested an additional drop (SO SR, 2011); at the same time with men and entrepreneurs with employees no drop was recorded. In 2010 the total number of male entrepreneurs was 272.2 thousand and women 94.8 thousand; women therefore made up 25.8% of the total number of entrepreneurs.

176

R E P O R T O N T H E L I V I N G CO N D I T I O N S O F R O MA H O U S E H O L D S I N S LO VA K I A 2010

Self-employed men and women by type (2000 – 2010, in thous.)

0

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

2007

2008

2009

210.6 73.7

61.6

2.0

89.3

84.8

2000

21.1

50

37.3 1.0 14.8 27.6 2.1 39.9 1.2 16.5 29.6 1.6 39.6 0.5 12.2 32.1 1.5

100

97.3

150

1.1

200

44.5 107.5 0.6 15.5 40.5 2.3 54.1 136.3 0.8 17.6 48.7 2.3 53.5 157.3 0.5 18 49 1.1 52.5 162.2 0.5 18.9 54.5 0.6 53.2 173.9 0.9 20.4 54.1 1.4 59.7 190.5 1.2 18.2 63.7 1.9 61.5 206.8 0.9 19.5 79.7 2.4

250

2010

Entrepreneurs with employees

Entrepreneurs without employees

Entrepreneurs without employees

Entrepreneurs without employees

Helping members of household businesses

Helping members of household businesses

Source: Slovstat Database. Bratislava, Statistical Office of the Slovak Republic 2011 Slovakia also prior to the crisis recorded a phenomenon when employers persuaded their employees to switch over to a business license (a more suitable situation for the employer, since it has no responsibility for an employee on a business license in the sense of paying obligatory insurance and other social protection and benefits. In general the so-called forced business license or “compelled entrepreneur” rank among the forms of precarious work (Fudge – Owens, 2006; Kalleberg, 2009), the statistical office also began to appear account for them and they became a topic of public discussion (Pacherová, 2011; Šimková, 2011). According to the newest data from the Statistical Office of the Slovak Republic there are in Slovakia approximately 100,000 business license holders(about one-quarter of all entrepreneurs), who were forced into this form of work and their number shows a growth tendency (SO SR, 2011).

In relation to the last group of self-employed – assisting in a home business – this group also permanently shows gender differences. In the majority of cases most women have such work arrangements: in 2010 this was 1,100 men and 2,000 women, which in comparison with 2005 meant a growth for both men and women.

Women and men with employment for shorter working times and underemployment (2000 – 2010, in thous.)

32.4

24.0

33.0

45.8 27.4

24.2

33.5

41.6 19.8

17.9 10.6

4.2

15.6

13.0

17.5

14.5 5.3

17.8

14.7 4.7

14.5

15.4 3.4

2.3

1.6

2.6

10 1.7

37.1

35.0 13.5

13.7

11.7

25.9 11.9

14.8

12.6

11.7

28.8 11.1

30 20

33.2

40

38.1

50

42.5

43.6

53.1

60

0 2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

2007

Men – shorter work time

Women – shorter work time

Men – underemployed

Women - underemployed

2008

2009

2010

Source: Slovstat Database. Bratislava, Statistical Office of the Slovak Republic 2011

177

R E P O R T O N T H E L I V I N G CO N D I T I O N S O F R O MA H O U S E H O L D S I N S LO VA K I A 2010

In comparison with other EU countries the Slovak labour market has a very low share of shortened work relations; with a share of 4.4% (men 3.3% and women 5.7% of all employed) it is in next-to-last place (Bútorová et al., 2008; Filadelfiová – Bútorová, 2011). According to statistical data last year brought a change in this characteristic of employment, the share of employed on shorter work time changed and was shortened. Women tend to work a shorter work time than men, in 2010 this was 53,100 women and 33,000 men.

The last two years have also seen a significant increase in shorter work ties; in view of the fact that the growth tendency was discovered during the crisis, it is not surprising that involuntary shortening of work ties primarily increased. Underemployed women totalled 32.4 thousand in 2010 and men totalled 24 thousand. Of all men, 72.7% had such a contract and 61% of women were employed for a shorter work time. The difference could indicate that the “free choice” for shorter working time is somewhat higher in the case of women who thus resolve the tension between work and family obligations, which is, however, also a certain form of compulsion.

In comparison with 2005 the number of underemployed men increased five-fold (from 4.7 to 24 thousand) and the number of underemployed women nearly doubled (from 17.8 to 32.4 thousand).

BOX 9.3: THE MEASURE OF EMPLOYMENT AND UNEMPLOYMENT IN SLOVAKIA In the development of employment and unemployment Slovakia recorded a more principle turnaround in the year 2009: the measure of employment of men age 15-64 years in 2010 after long-term grown decreased to 65.2% and the employment of women to 52.3%; the lagging on the side of women is by 13%. From the viewpoint of measure of employment of women Slovakia is in last place among the EU-27 countries (Employment in..., 2010); the employment of Slovak women with a child age 3-5 years is also very low, lagging behind the average for the OECD countries by more than 10% (Babies..., 2007).Differences in employment of women and men are expressed in all age groups but for the group age 30 – 34 years (by 22.5%), women are “trimmed off” from employment by caring for children, and for age 55 – 59 years (by 26.9%), when the difference is the result of women leaving the labour force for retirement in the past.

Measures of employment and unemployment (2000 – 2010, in %) Men - Measure of employment 15+

2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 54.7 54.7 55.2 56.2 56.3 57.8 59.9 61.1 62.6 60.4 58.2

Women - Measure of employment 15+

42.9

43.1

42.7

43.5

42.5

42.5

43.2

44.2

45.5

43.8

43.4

Men - Measure of employment 15-64

61.5

61.4

62.0

63.0

63.0

64.6

67.0

68.4

70.0

67.6

65.2

Women - Measure of employment 15-64

51.5

51.8

51.4

52.2

50.9

50.9

51.9

53.1

54.6

52.8

52.3

Men - Measure of employment 55-64

35.4

37.7

39.1

41.0

43.8

47.8

49.8

52.5

56.7

54.9

54.0

9.8

9.8

9.5

11.2

12.6

15.6

18.9

21.2

24.2

26.1

28.7

Men - Measure of employment 15+

18.6

19.5

18.4

17.2

17.3

15.3

12.2

9.8

8.4

11.4

14.2

Women - Measure of employment 15+

18.6

18.8

18.7

17.7

19.1

17.2

14.7

12.5

11.1

12.9

14.6

Women - Measure of employment 55-64

Source: Slovstat Database. Bratislava, Statistical Office of the Slovak Republic 2011 Unemployment had the opposite development – after a period of striking decline it began to grow again. The measure of unemployment expressed as a percentage share of the labour force age 15+ (VZPS methodology) grew in 2010 for men to 14.2% and for women to 14.6%.

In the long-term perspective the measure of unemployment of women is consistently higher than the unemployment of men (with the exception of years 2000 and 2001). Although unemployment among men grew faster, the gender gap to the disadvantage of women was also preserved in 2010. The reason for the slower growth of unemployment of women could be their overall resignation on the labour market (their departure among the economically inactive); many women are also excluded from the system of protection in unemployment for an interrupted work career and insufficient number of days in the social insurance system connecting to the drawing of parental leave and the like. (A claim for an unemployment benefit arises if the insured during the last three years before being registered among applicants for employment was insured in unemployment for at least two years – see: http://www.socpoist.sk/davka-v-nezamestnanosti/1361s#kto-manarok). This is indicated also in the number of those drawing an unemployment benefit – the share of women is consistently lower in comparison with men: while among unemployed women 46.7% drew an unemployment benefit, among unemployed men this was 53/7%.

Furthermore, the average amount of the benefit was lower for women, because it is derived from the previous wage, and women on average earn about one-quarter less.

In 2010 the average number of unemployed men reached 212.8 thousand, and the number of unemployed women was 176.2 thousand; overall women made up 45.3%. But upon comparisons with the year 2005 the number of unemployed in 2010 was smaller – for women by 27.6 thousand and for men by 10.8 thousand.

178

R E P O R T O N T H E L I V I N G CO N D I T I O N S O F R O MA H O U S E H O L D S I N S LO VA K I A 2010

212.8 176.2

2004

170.8 153.5

2003

124.6 132.8

2002

150.0

143.5 148.4

249.9 230.9

2001

179.5 173.9

246.4 212.7

2000

200.0

223.6 203.8

223.0

263.9 225.4

250.0

219.7

265.5

300.0

282.5

Development in the number of unemployed women and men (2000 – 2010, in thous.)

100.0 50.0 0

Muži

2005

2006

2007

2008

2009

2010

Ženy

Source: Slovstat Database. Bratislava, Statistical Office of the Slovak Republic 2011

BOX 9.4: STANDING IN REGARD TO THE ROLES OF WOMEN AND MEN – COMPARISON OF THE WHOLE POPULATION WITH THE SEGREGATED ROMA POPULATION According to research on the human rights of Roma women which as carried out in 2009 in non-integrated Roma communities by the Cultural Association of Roma in Slovakia, and from their comparison with data from the entire adult population of the Slovak Republic (IVO 2006) it was shown that gender differences in perceiving the roles of men and women occurs in the total population of Slovakia, no but in the nonintegrated part of the Roma population it is much more pronounced. The normative concepts of the typical man and the typical woman are stronger in the surveyed Roma communities; they showed more pronounced traditional role expectations. The ideal woman in this environment is expected to be a guardian of the family hearth, (and on the part of women, too), and more demands are concentrated on the ideal man in relation to provision for the family. Similar differences are also expressed also with independent decisions (in the case of the typical woman), authority in the family and the dictates of beauty (for a man and a woman), or education and physical force (also for the normative expectations for a man and a woman). The differences of opinions found of the non-integrated Roma population corresponds approximately in some aspects to the level of public opinion of the SR from ten years ago (compare Bútorová et al., 1996, pg. 24).

Very important traits of a typical women and a typical man – comparison of the opinion of the total population of the Slovak Republic (SR) and the surveyed part of the Roma population (in %) Traits appraised Know how to care for the household Delicacy and sensitivity regarding the problems of others Decide independently Looks good, beauty Authority in the family Enterprising, worldly The highest education Financially secures the family Physically strong

Traits of women Population of SR roma set 70 51 48 42 35 34 24 18 7

87 51 57 49 21 37 17 38 18

Traits of men Population of SR roma set 44 30 61 15 46 60 32 79 34

52 33 59 22 57 59 23 84 64

Note: Data for the entire SR presented according to Bútorová et al. 2008, pg. 22; survey data are from 2006 (IVO 2006).

Source: Data on the human rights of Roma women. Banská Bystrica, Cultural Association of Roma in Slovakia 2009.

As is stated in the final report from the study, in the non-integrated Roma population the conviction survives regarding the significantly different women‘s and men’s roles in society and the family. A different world for “pink” and “blue” in non-integrated communities, to which arrive and where are socialise Roma girls and boys, can have significant impacts on their future life, limit their free choice of a life’s path and significantly cut them off from opportunities (boys and girls, but above all girls), namely from the viewpoint of successful connection and application on the labour market (Data..., 2009).

179

R E P O R T O N T H E L I V I N G CO N D I T I O N S O F R O MA H O U S E H O L D S I N S LO VA K I A 2010

Schéma 9.1 Inclusion in the labor market – factors of influence

ZARADENIE NA TRHU PRÁCE PRACUJÚCI – NEZAMESTNANÍ

Gramotnosť (čítanie a písanie)

Má problém aspoň s jedným

Nemá problém ani s jedným

Dosiahnuté vzdelanie

Vzdelanie rodičov

Zloženie detí v triede (posledný rok na základnej škole)

Počet detí v domácnosti (0 – 14 rokov)

Žije v domácnosti s 2 a viac deťmi

Viac ako polovica rómskych detí

Žije v domácnosti bez detí alebo s 1 dieťaťom

Negatívne zážitky na trhu práce (spolu 5 situácií)

Polovica a menej rómskych detí

Typ bývania (podľa priestorového vylúčenia)

Zažil dve a viac situácií

Aspoň jeden z rodičov vyššie ako základné vzdelanie

Zažil maximálne jednu situáciu

Obaja rodičia maximálne základné vzdelanie

Separovaná časť obce alebo rozptýlené bývanie

Vyššie ako ukončená základná škola

Segregovaná osada

Ukončená základná škola a nižšie

BOX 9.5: THE HIGHER LOAD OF WOMEN WITH HOUSEHOLD WORK As the available study data shows, the reality in Slovakia further consists of large gender differences in the division of household chores and their negative impact on the working career of women. Women are more burdened with family care and household chores, which has unfavourable impacts on their work career (Bútorová et al. 2008; Filadelfiová, 2008; SNSĽP 2006). Overall they devote about 16 hours more per week to unpaid work in the household; with care about members of the family the difference is 7 hours and with domestic chores up to 9 hours.

Selected indicators about division of domestic chores and the impacts on working career (in %) Women Number of hours per week of devoted care Number of hours per week of devoted household work They had to find employment which allowed for care They had for a certain time to completely leave employment due to the need to care Due to care they had to take less responsible work

Men 17 19 28 17 11

10 10 4 2 3

Difference +7 +9 +24 +15 +8

Note: Without the responses “I can’t guess”.

Source: Bútorová et al., 2008.

According to the study from 2006 up to 11% of women, because of family obligations, had to arrange less responsible work; 28% of women were forced to find employment which would allow for the care of children and members of the family; 17% had to completely leave employment for a certain time because of family (IVO, 2006).

180

10

Standard of living of roma households – incomes, financial difficulties and deprivation in consumption

Standard of living can be monitored with the help of different indicators. Some of them were presented in previous chapters (material living conditions, household furnishings, etc.). This chapter sets as its goal to detail three aspects of living standard which are, however, related.

First, the income situation of Roma households, which represents one of the key determinants of standard of living, will be treated. Data about work, social and overall incomes will be presented. The presence of incomes and their amounts in households were surveyed for the last month preceding the period of the survey. Thus, this doesn’t involve a yearly or half-yearly sum, but information about one moment in time. During the creation of the questionnaire, it was assumed that identification of incomes for longer time periods could run across a problem with the given value of the provided responses.

What’s more, the questionnaire contained eight modules with a large number of detailed questions; therefore, too much detail regarding the surveying of incomes (and expenditures) could have a counterproductive effect.

Alongside incomes, the chapter is also devoted to the occurrence of financial difficulties, specifically unpaid debts associated with the provision of basic services such as supplies of water and electricity or with the provision of basic needs (buying groceries). The chapter will also ultimately be devoted to deprivation in the field of consumption of selected goods and services. Deprivation in consumption is covered by indicators which are commonly followed in surveys of living conditions (for ex-

ample, in the EU SILC survey). This allows for a comparison of the situation of the set of Roma households with other more general sets.

10.1. Total work incomes Aside from the questions about wages/payments for work performed which were asked of individual members of the surveyed households, a question was also posited in the survey about the total sum of work incomes for the entire household. This involved the sum of working incomes for the last month which preceded the period of the survey. Approximately 24% of surveyed Roma households on average mentioned the presence of some work income (25% for households living diffused and over 23% for segregated and separated).1 This could have involved one work income or the sum total of a number of work incomes. In the first step of the analysis, we divided the sums given in responses into a number of income intervals (because of the low number of households with a work income a small number of income intervals was selected). Nearly 40% of Roma households had incomes from employment in the amount up to EUR 350; most Roma households – more than 46% – were in the middle income interval of EUR 351 to EUR 700; and 14.2% gave a total work income over EUR 700. The distribution of the sums of work incomes was specific in the subset of households from segregated settlements, where half

Box 10.1: CURRENT DEVELOPMENT IN THE MEASURING OF POVERTY AND SOCIAL EXCLUSION IN THE EU In 2010 a new strategy known as Europe 2020 was accepted whose goal is to ensure intelligent, sustainable an inclusive economic growth.

One of the five main goals of the strategy relates to the reduction of the number of people endangered by poverty or social exclusion, by which poverty and social exclusion are defined with the help of three indicators: the target population is made up people at risk of poverty (i.e. with equivalent disposable income which is lower than 60% of the national median equivalent disposable income), people exposed to material deprivation (i.e. with the forced absence of four of the nine monitored items relating to long-term consumer goods and financial difficulties) and people living in households with very low work intensity (i.e. in households in which persons of a productive age work less than 20% of their overall “labour” potential). At the same time, it is true that a person is considered as poor or socially excluded when he or she belongs to at least one of the mentioned three categories (European Commission, 2011: 106). This involves a definition which reflects the multidimensionality of the disadvantages which a part of the population faces in EU member states – it does not focus only on relative income poverty but also heeds the non-monetary aspects of poverty and exclusion from the labour market. At the same time it expresses the attempt of member states regarding a complex approach to combating poverty and social exclusion.

Measuring and monitoring poverty and social exclusion on the level of the EU represents a very dynamic field of activities. In recent years it has been possible to track several changes relating to the portfolios of the indicators used. An example of such activities is also the attempt at conceptualisation of extreme poverty on the EU level. One of the first results is the study of J. Bradshaw and E. Mayhew from the year 2011, which originated with the support of the European Commission and offers an overview of existing approaches to measuring poverty and the application of them on data from the EU SILC, which are collected in all EU member states. The authors recommend focusing attention on indicators tied to deprivation and to overlapping of income poverty and deprivation as well as the creation of “standard budgets” for lowincome households (Bradshaw – Mayhew, 2011).

1 These data were calculated for those Roma households which responded to the question.

181

R E P O R T O N T H E L I V I N G CO N D I T I O N S O F R O MA H O U S E H O L D S I N S LO VA K I A 2010

Table 10.1 Distribution of total month sum of working incomes in Roma households and in the households of the geographically close general population (in %)

To EUR 350 EUR 351-700 EUR 701 and more Households total

Roma households Segregated Separated Diffused Total 50.0 43.5 30.5 44.4 43.5 49.2 5.6 13.0 20.3 100.0 100.0 100.0

Households of the geographically close general population 39.7 46.1 14.2 100.0

9.9 35.2 54.9 100.0

Note: Total work incomes were surveyed for the month which preceded the month of the survey.

belonged to the lowest wage interval and only 5.6% were in the highest interval. This above-standard representation of low incomes and very low representation of high incomes differentiated them especially from households living diffused. In comparison with the geographically close general population households were on average significantly worse off – the highest income interval had the highest representation among the general households, with more than half of all households (55%). The total sum of work incomes to EUR 350 occurred in one-tenth of them and 35% of these households had incomes from EUR 351 to EUR 700.

The average sum of the total work incomes in Roma households represented EUR 485; the median sum had a value of EUR 400.2 The highest average sum of work incomes was shown for Roma households living diffused (EUR 549). With decreasing spatial integration this value dropped – the average sum among households from segregated settlements was EUR 377. The ANOVA procedure used for comparing sums of work incomes in the three monitored categories of Roma households showed statistically significant differences in the significance level α = 0.05.3 According to a Bonferroni post hoc test statistically significant differences in the total sum of work incomes existed between diffused and segregated households. It is thus possible to state that households living diffused had statistically significant higher work in-

comes than households from segregated settlements. For comparison, households from the geographically close general population showed a significantly higher average income than Roma households – it represented EUR 900, and the median had a value of EUR 750. In view of the overall low number of Roma households with a work income, it is meaningless to present additional, more detailed classifications and relations.

10.2. Total social incomes The presence of social incomes and their amount in households was surveyed the same as work incomes, for the last month which preceded the period of data collection. The concept of a social income was simple – all transfers from the state to households or its individual members were considered to be social incomes, whether they involve insurance benefits, state social support benefits or poverty assistance and payments associated with it. Social incomes could thus be drawn on the level of the household as well as on the level of individuals (with data regarding individual types of incomes, the level involved will always be presented). Aggregate, total social incomes were calculated for each household.

Approximately 95% of Roma households gave some sum originating from social incomes during the

Table 10.2 Average work incomes in Roma households by type of settlement and in the households of the geographically close general population (in EUR) Average Standard income (in EUR) deviation Segregated Separated Diffused Households from the geographically close general population

377 489 549 900

35.9 48.0 48.1 38.4

Confidence interval (95%) Lower limit Upper limit 303.5 449.5 392.7 586.2 452.3 644.7 823.9 975.4

Note: Average income was calculated from data from households which gave a non-zero sum for work income. Households which did not have any work income and those which did not respond to the question were not taken into consideration.

182

2 These data were calculated only for households which gave a non-zero sum for work income.

3 The value of the testing F criteria was 3.194 with two degrees of freedom. The null hypothesis regarding distribution equations was not refused (Levene’s test of homogeneity of variance was not statistically significant), so that the given procedure could be used.

R E P O R T O N T H E L I V I N G CO N D I T I O N S O F R O MA H O U S E H O L D S I N S LO VA K I A 2010

Table 10.3 Distribution of the total monthly sum of social incomes in Roma households by type of settlement and in the households of the geographically close general population (in %)

To EUR 150 EUR 151-300 EUR 301-450 EUR 451-600 EUR 601 and more Households total

Roma households Segregated Separated Diffused Total 7.4 10.7 10.2 37.8 44.0 39.6 33.9 27.2 31.4 13.5 14.4 13.1 7.4 3.7 5.7 100.0 100.0 100.0

Households from geographically close general population 9.5 40.5 30.8 13.6 5.6 100.0

12.9 20.5 28.1 14.3 24.1 100.0

Note: Total social incomes were surveyed for the month preceding the month of data collection.

Table 10.4 Average social incomes in Roma households by type of settlement and in households from the geographically close general population (in EUR) Average income (EUR) Segregated Separated Diffused Households from the geographically close general population

348 324 323 424

Standard error 11.2 12.1 10.7 16.7

Confidence interval (95%) Lower limit Upper limit 325.4 369.6 299.6 347.4 302.1 344.1 390.7 456.5

Note: Average income was calculated from households which listed a social income. Households which did not have a social income and those which did not respond to the question were not taken into consideration.

last month.4 This number is not as high, however, as it may seem at first glance, since we are talking about any type of social income – whether it involves support for the birth of a child, a parental allowance, support for unemployment or different types of pensions. Data categorised into income zones EUR 150 wide show that the most Roma households had a social income in the EUR 151 to EUR 300 interval (40.5%) and from EUR 301 to EUR 450 (30.8%). Not even social incomes on a higher level were an exception, however: 13.6% of Roma households had a total sum of social benefits on a level of EUR 451 to EUR 600, and 5.6% drew benefits higher than EUR 601. The differences between households with different types of housing were not significant. In all three categories the sum from EUR 151 to EUR 450 occurred most often. Households from the geographically close general population demonstrated a different distribution of social incomes. The most households had a social income in the interval from EUR 301 to EUR 450 (28 %); however, a principle difference was shown with the occurrence of social incomes over EUR 600: while in the set of Roma households not quite 6% of households gave such an income, in the general population nearly one-quarter of households (24.1%) fell into this group. The higher social incomes in the general population could be the result of several facts. Here the dif-

ferent age structure could have an impact (a higher representation of old-age pensioners), the higher occurrence of insurance benefits (which derive from a certain period of preceding economic activity and levies paid) and the like. The higher level of incomes does not mean larger coverage of the given population: 60.7% of general households listed some type of social income (in comparison with 95% of Roma households).

The average value of social incomes for the entire set of Roma households represented EUR 331 (see Table 10.4); the median had a value of EUR 301, and the most commonly given sum was EUR 300 (3.8% or Roma households listed this sum). For households living diffused and separated social incomes were on average around the level of EUR 323 and EUR 324, and in segregated settlements this was higher – the average social income was EUR 348. Graph 10.1 shows the character of the distribution of responses. As can be seen, average values are influenced by several distant values.

If we were to remove them from consideration, the average social incomes would be lower. The dotted horizontal line shows the average for the entire set of Roma households. The solid lines inside the individual boxes show the median values. The ANOVA procedure showed that the average social incomes of Roma households in the three subsets defined on the basis

4 This data was calculated for those Roma households which responded to the question.

183

R E P O R T O N T H E L I V I N G CO N D I T I O N S O F R O MA H O U S E H O L D S I N S LO VA K I A 2010

Graph 10.1 Distribution of total sums of social incomes in the set of Roma households by type of settlement (in EUR)

Total sum of social incomes

2000

1500

1000

500

0 Diffused

Segregated

Separated

of spatial integration were not significantly different statistically for any of the followed levels of significance.

Households representing the geographically close general population were shown to have a significantly higher social income than the surveyed Roma households (EUR 424, which is EUR 100 more).

With an analysis of incomes it is necessary to consider the effect of household size on the amount of income; for example, households with the same income achieve as a consequence of a different number of members a different level of well-being. Several methods exist for balancing this out. One of the most frequently used methods is application of a modified OECD scale, which transforms household incomes into an “equivalent member” through a scale which ascribes a “first” adult person the coefficient 1, and each additional adult person the coefficient 0.5 and each unprovided for child to age 14 years a coefficient of value 0.3. This means, for example, that households with two adult members and two children under the age of 14 years are assigned a coefficient of 2.1. The income of this household is then transformed into an “income per equivalent member” so that its original amount is divided by the given sum of the individual coefficients. Another method is a trans-

formation based on determining the “income per capita”, which means that the household income is divided by the number of household members. In this text we use the second method, which is often applied in studies of very vulnerable groups and at the same time avoids reproaches relating to the arbitrary nature of the selected values of the coefficients in the modified OECD scale. On the other hand it is necessary to remark that no method provides a simple and problem-free solution, and in the second case reservations do exist – most often associated with the fact that it ignores from its range household savings.

After calculation of total social incomes “per capita” it is possible to observe certain shifts in the average incomes of Roma households. The highest average income per capita among Roma households was shown to be in those living diffused, behind which were households from segregated settlements. The position of diffused households changed in comparison with the situation if the original “unaltered“ social incomes are taken into consideration (see Table 10.4), which could be the result of the impact of size – it is these households that showed the lowest number of members in comparison with the other two types. According to the results of the ANOVA procedure, however, the differences between the compared three types of Roma settlements were not statistically significant. A comparison of Roma households with households from the geographically close general population did show in this case significant differences. Average social incomes “per capita” were for the general households EUR 100 higher than for Roma households living diffused, and with separated and segregated households the difference was higher still.

The amount of social incomes “per capita” is derived (also) from the structure of the household. In the set of Roma households it was shown that the presence of children lowers the average social income “per capita”. This applies for households with children to age 6 years as well as with children to age 18 years (Table 10.6). The average income per capita in the case of Roma households with children to age 6 years is significantly lower than

Table 10.5 Average social incomes “per capita” in Roma households by type of settlement and in households from the geographically close general population (in EUR) Average Standard income (in EUR) error Segregated Separated Diffused Households from the geographically close general population

184

88 84 93 193

3.9 3.7 3.8 9.2

Confidence interval (95%) Lower limit Upper limit 80.8 96.2 77.1 91.7 85.8 100.9 174.9 211.2

Note: Average income was calculated from households which listed a social income. Households which did not have a social income and those which did not respond to the question were not taken into consideration.

R E P O R T O N T H E L I V I N G CO N D I T I O N S O F R O MA H O U S E H O L D S I N S LO VA K I A 2010

Table 10.6 Average social incomes “per capita” in Roma households by the number of children to age 6 and to age 18 years (in EUR) Average income (in EUR)

Standard error

Confidence interval (95%) Lower limit Upper limit

Households with children to age 6 years 1 child 2 children 3 and more children Households with children to age 18 years 1 child 2 children 3 and more children

71 66 53

2.3 2.8 2.1

66.5 60.3 48.5

75.5 71.3 56.7

87 72 58

3.5 2.3 1.3

79.9 66.9 55.2

93.8 76.2 60.5

Note: This involves households with children to age 6 years and to 18 years inclusive. The average income per capita for households without children to age 6 years was EUR 110, in the case of households without children to 18 years EUR 145.

the average income per capita of Roma households without children of that age (EUR 110) and the average income per capita for the entire set of Roma households (EUR 89). Furthermore, with an increasing number of children, the average income drops: while in households with one child to age 6 years it was on a level of EUR 71, in the case of households with three or more children to age 6 years this was on a significantly lower level (EUR 53). Similar conclusions can be stated also for Roma households with children to age 18 years. And here the average social income per capita is lower than with households without such children (EUR 145) and it applies that with a growing number of children social incomes calculated per household member declines.

The geographically close general population was significantly better in this from the point of view of overall level of social incomes. If, however, we look at households with children, then the given statement does not apply (Table 10.7). Average social incomes calculated per capita did not reach the level of incomes of Roma households with children to age 6 or 18 years.

Differences between the Roma and the geographically close general population appear if we take the presence of pensioners into consideration.5 Incomes of households from the general population in which persons age 65 years and older live are significantly higher than incomes for Roma households with persons of the given age (Table 10.8). Social incomes calculated per capita are in Roma households with one pensioner lower by more than EUR 100 in comparison with households from the general population with one person of retirement age. In the case of households with two persons of retirement age the differences between the Roma and the general population are a bit smaller, but still remain significant.

The comparison of social incomes of households without a person age 65 years an older and households in which at least one such person lives reveals the fact that old-age pensions represent a significant part of social incomes. The social income in households where no person age 65 years and older lives is lower in Roma households (EUR 84) as well as in households from the geographically close general population (EUR 143).

Table 10.7 Average social incomes “per capita” in households from the geographically close general population by number of children to age 6 years and to age 18 years (in EUR) Average income (in EUR)

Standard error

Confidence interval (95%) Lower limit Upper limit

Households with children to age 6 years* 1 child 2 children

59 50

7.3 6.8

44.2 35.2

74.3 65.6

1 child 2 children 3 and more children

83 61 54

13.7 6.7

54.7 47.1

110.9 74.7

Households with children to age 18 years

Note: This involves households with children to age 6 years and to age 18 years inclusive The average income per capita for households without children to age 6 years was EUR 223, and in the case of households without children to 18 years EUR 255. *For this type of households we do not present data on households with three children because of the very low number of cases (n = 2).

5 For simplification we will here consider a person age 65 years and older to be of retirement age.

185

R E P O R T O N T H E L I V I N G CO N D I T I O N S O F R O MA H O U S E H O L D S I N S LO VA K I A 2010

Table 10.8 Average social incomes “per capita” in Roma households and in households from the geographically close general population by number of persons age 65 years and older (in EUR) Average income (in EUR)

Standard error

Confidence interval (95%) Lower limit Upper limit

Roma households one person age 65+ years two persons age 65+ years Households from the geographically close general population one person age 65+ years two persons age 65+ years

144 195

14.5 14.3

114.4 164.6

173.1 224.5

256 266

16.4 15.7

223.7 234.2

289.1 298.2

Note: The average social income per capita for Roma households without a person age 65 years and older was EUR 83, and in the case of households from the geographically close general population this was EUR 143.

10.3. The drawing of social transfers The total sum of social incomes is made up of social transfers which are linked to the situation in the given household. This subchapter refers to the preceding one and offers a more detailed look at representation of individual types of benefits in the surveyed set of Roma households.

Some social benefits are linked to the household as a whole, while others are intended for individual members of a household. This fact is important for specification of a reference group to which the share of recipients of a certain benefit is related.6

10.3.1. The benefit in material need and allowances associated with it Assistance in material need is a programme guaranteeing a minimal income whose goal is the support of families with very low or no income and ensuring their basic living conditions. It represents the last social safety net which is usually provided after all claims on other subsystem benefits have expired. A claim for a benefit in material need is conditioned by a number of facts.

One of the most important is that the incomes for the persons under review must collectively be lower than the sum determined by law. Also associated with it is the impossibility of providing or increasing incomes under one’s own power and the impossibility of providing basic living conditions with one’s own property.7 Assistance in material need is a richly structured programme, in the scope of which a basic benefit in material need is offered as well as several allowances tied to fulfilling specific conditions. The amount of the benefit is differentiated into six levels and several allowances are added to this (see Box 10.2).

186

In the scope of the Survey of the Living Conditions of Roma Households in 2010 the methodological survey of incomes from the assistance in material need programme differed a little from the approach applied in 2005. While in 2005 the total number and share of families who draw any income associated with material need was first ascertained (UNDP, 2006: 48); five years later this process was abandoned with the goal of simplifying the situation for respondents and the professional public. In 2010 the direct drawing of the benefit in material need was surveyed and also the allowances associated with it. The concept of “income associated with material need” was not used. This had consequences for calculation of the representation of families in the given programme in the entire set as well as for other indicators.

The benefit in material need is drawn on average by half of all Roma households. From the surveyed set of households living in segregated settlements up to 52.3% drew it, while from separated settlements this was 50.2% and from diffused 47.3%. Only 4% of the geographically close general population drew the benefit.

The health care allowance, which serves for the payments of expenditures associated with health care, was drawn by 43% of households also drawing the benefit in material need. The housing allowance was paid to 58% of those drawing the benefit in material need. The share of those households in the individual types of settlements with different degrees of integration differed significantly. While among diffused settlements 77% of households drew it, the remaining two environments had a much weaker representation (52% in separated settlements, 48% in segregated settlements). The lower level of drawing the allowance in separated and segregated settlements could reflect the fact that a provision of the allowance for housing was tied to certain con-

6 Households and individuals who did not respond to the questions about drawing of individual types of social transfers are not taken into consideration in the calculations.

7 See: http://www.upsvar.sk/socialne-veci-a-rodina/hmotna-nudza/davka-a-prispevky-v-hmotnej-nudzi.html?page_id=226.

R E P O R T O N T H E L I V I N G CO N D I T I O N S O F R O MA H O U S E H O L D S I N S LO VA K I A 2010

Box 10.2: SUMS OF THE BENEFITS IN MATERIAL NEED AND OTHER ALLOWANCES IN THE YEAR 2010 In 2010, that is, at the time this study was carried out, the sums of benefits in material need for individual types of households and sums of associated allowances and benefits were as follows: Type of household

Sum in EUR Individual Individual with 1-4 children Individual with more than 4 children Couple with no children Couple with 1-4 children Couple with more than 4 children Type of benefit and allowance Sum in EUR Activation allowance Protection allowance Allowance for housing for individual Allowance for housing for more persons Health care allowance Increase benefit for pregnant women Benefit for parents caring for child to 1 year Benefit for child fulfilling compulsory school attendance

60.5 115.1 168.2 105.2 157.6 212.3 63.07 63.07 55.8 89.2 2.0 13.5 13.5 17.2

Source: www.upsvar.sk.

ditions supporting its correct use which, however, were not easily satisfied in the environments of some Roma communities (particularly those with a lesser degree of integration) (UNDP, 2006: 49). The low share of households drawing the benefit in material need, to whom the housing allowance was paid, could have negative consequences for the Roma population, namely in regard to its important function: from the structure of the system of assistance in material need in 2010 it is obvious that the housing allowance represented a significant financial supplement toward the basic benefit in material need. Its absence could threaten the stability of housing (lowering the ability to pay for rent and services associated with housing), deepen financial difficulties and lead into a trap of indebtedness.

Alongside the benefit in material need a benefit for parents of a child up to age one was also paid in 2010, which was conditioned by demonstrable proof from a paediatrician about participation in a preventive medical examination. This benefit was drawn by 8% of households which were recipients of the benefit in material need.8 An additional benefit was that for compulsory school attendance of a child, acknowledgement of which was tied to the fulfilling of school attendance. In the year 2010, 40% of Roma households drawing the benefit in material need also drew this benefit. From those living diffused, 42% of households drew it, while among the separated this was 40.3% and from Roma households living in segregated settlements it was 38.7%.

Activation and protection allowances also belong to the benefit in material need. The activation allowance is intended for people in material need (who fulfil the conditions for a claim to the benefit in material need) for the purpose of support “obtaining, maintaining or increasing awareness, professional skills or work habit for the purpose of work application during assistance in material need”.9 Thus, it involves a social transfer which is provided to individual, however, with consideration of the situation in the household. An activation allowance is drawn by 14% of persons in the set of the Roma population (15% from diffused and segregate, 12% from separated). So that we obtain a relevant idea about the significance of this allowance, it is necessary to define an adequate reference category.

First, it should involve persons living in a household which is a recipient of the benefit in material need. Second, it is necessary to more closely specify the age interval in which the person drawing the benefit will be monitored. For this purpose we selected the age category 16-54 years (inclusive), which captures persons of productive age. Among Roma belonging to this age category who lived in households drawing a benefit in material need, 30% drew the activation allowance. The most were among Roma from segregated settlements (37 %). From those living diffused every third person of the given age living in a household drawing the benefit in material need also drew the activation allowance. The lowest share of those drawing the al-

8 Due to the low numbers more detailed classifications are not further presented.

9 Act 599/2003 Coll. on assistance in material need and on amendments to certain acts. §12.

187

R E P O R T O N T H E L I V I N G CO N D I T I O N S O F R O MA H O U S E H O L D S I N S LO VA K I A 2010

Box 10.3: CONDITIONS FOR DRAWING THE ACTIVATION AND THE PROTECTION ALLOWANCE ALONG WITH THE BENEFIT IN MATERIAL NEED An Activation allowance is provided to a citizen in material need and to each natural person who is reviewed in common with the citizen in material need (if the conditions for the benefit in material nee are met) in the following way.

A citizen in poverty who is employed has a claim for an activation allowance: - if he/she increases qualification through the form of study or employment, combined study and the study of individual schooled subjects or through the form of external study, - if he/she takes part in education and preparation for the labour market taking place in the scope of projects approved by the ministry, - if he/she takes part in the performing of smaller municipal services taking place on the basis of agreements with the office or the municipality.

A citizen in material need who is registered as an applicant for employment has a claim for an activation allowance in the case of the abovementioned, plus if he/she takes part in the performing of smaller municipal jobs for the self-governing region.

A citizen in material need, to whom a parental allowance is paid, has a claim for an activation allowance if he/she is studying at a secondary school or university.

An activation allowance is also provided to long-term unemployed citizens who become employed with a wage in an interval from minimum wage up through three-times its value and to whom the benefit in material need was previously provided. This also applies for the long-term unemployed who began performing self-employment activity.

A Protection allowance is provided to a citizen in material need and to each natural person who is reviewed in common with the citizen in material need, if they meet the conditions for the origin of benefit in material need and they cannot secure basic living needs for the following reasons: - they reach the age necessary for a claim on an old-age pension, - they are disabled due to a decline in the ability to perform gainful activity by more than 70%, - single parents are involved who personally, all-day long and regularly care for a child up to 31 weeks of age, - a person is involved who personally, all-day long and regularly cares for a child or adult person who is, according to the assessment of the relevant body, a child or adult person with a serious health disability, - they have an unfavourable health status, which for the purposes of this law are considered an illness, a health disorder acknowledged by the relevant examining physician lasting continuously for more than 30 days, or - they take part in re-socialisation programmes, in the scope of which he/she cannot provide an income with his/her own labour.

(Cited from: Act 599/2003 Coll. on assistance in material need and on the change and amendment of certain laws, §12.)

188

lowance was shown to be among the Roma from separated settlements – 22% of them drew the activation allowance. The set of households from the geographically close general population had an equal share of persons with activation work.

The protection allowance is offered to people in material need, who cannot secure basic living conditions for different reasons (see Box 10.3). It thus allows the benefit in material need to be supplemented by an additional sum with the existence of cogent barriers to activation. In terms of occurrence the protection allowance was not as significant as the activation allowance. Only 3% of Roma age 16-54 years who lived in households on the benefit in material need drew it (5% in segregated settlements, 3% in separated communities and 2% from diffused). In the geographically close general population the protective allowance occurred to an utterly negligible measure.

Thus, a total of 33% of Roma of productive age (1654 years) who lived in households reliant on the benefit in material need drew the activation and protection allowance. Keeping in mind that both (complementary) allowances represent the possibility of a significant increase in household income (see Box 10.2), this does not involve a high number. It’s possible to assume that in the use of these two support instruments several barriers exist in practice which could have a structural character (whether on the side of demand or offer).

10.3.2. Pensions In the Roma population the coverage of pensioners was in general low. In the case of old-age, early and retirement pensions the result of the age structure of the Roma population is involved, as only 4% of persons are age 60 years and older and 2.3% of persons are 65 years and older. Old-age, early or retirement pensions were drawn by 5% of persons among all Roma. We obtain another perspective if we notice the share of those pensioners in the “older” part of the Roma population. As Table 10.9 shows, 87% of Roma age 60 years and older drew an old-age, early or retirement pension. The highest share of those drawing such pensions was in the segregated settlements (92%), the lowest among the Roma living diffused (81%). In the population of Roma age 65 years and older the measure of those drawing these pensions was still higher; the lowest occurrence appeared in this case in diffused settlements.

The set of the geographically close general population was older in comparison with the set of Roma (see Chapter 3). This is also reflected by the share of those drawing old-age, early and retirement pensions, which represented 24% of the entire set of the geographically close general population (it is nearly five-times higher than the share for the entire Roma population).

Therefore, for a comparison, data relating to the “older” part of the surveyed set are more relevant. In this case

R E P O R T O N T H E L I V I N G CO N D I T I O N S O F R O MA H O U S E H O L D S I N S LO VA K I A 2010

Table 10.9 Those drawing old-age, early and retirement pension in the Roma population by type of housing and in the geographically close general population (in %) Share drawing from whole population Segregated Separated Diffused Roma population total Geographically close general population

Share drawing in the population age 60+ years 4.2 6.6 4.5 5.1 23.7

Share drawing in the population age 65+ year

91.7 88.0 81.0 86.6 90.7

90.0 100.0 85.2 92.7 95.5

Note: Respondents who did not answer the question were not taken into consideration

the share of those drawing pensions in the geographically close population is higher than in the set of Roma.

Graph 10.2 shows that other types of pensions were only a little widespread in the Roma population. The most frequent of them was the disability pension, which was drawn on average by 4.5% of Roma, most often by those living in segregated settlements. The widow/widower and orphans pension were represented in a very small measure. The situation in the geographically close general population was very similar – with the exception of the widow/widower pension, which occurred here significantly more often (9%) than in the Roma (1.8%).

while among individuals age 18 years and older those drawing the benefit represented 3%. For comparison, in 2010 the allowance for the birth of a child was provided to 56,736 persons in the entire Slovak Republic, which represents perhaps 1.3% of the population age 18 years and older.12 Also, 79% of those Roma who received the allowance for birth of a child also drew the bonus for the birth of a child.

Another of the benefits targeted on the needs of children is the child allowance. The child allowance is a recurrent family benefit which is offered universally in Slovakia. As the Report on the social situation of the population of the Slovak Republic for 2010 states: “In terms of the number of recipients and the amount of funds paid, the

10.3.3. Family benefits Family benefits provide support and compensation relating to different events during the lifetime and family cycle. They are provided on the principle of insurance (sick leave benefits) or on the principle of universalism or membership to a certain category. And let’s not forget even for the allocating of the benefits for one-time and recurrent family benefits.

The largest attention of this part of public policy is focused on the period of arrival of a child into a family and care for that child. The allowance upon the birth of a child and the bonus paid along with it plays a significant role here. The allowance upon the birth of a child is a one-time state social benefit intended to cover expenditures associated with providing essential needs for a newborn, and it usually paid out universally (conditions relate only to citizenship). Since 2009 a bonus has been provided along with the allowance which should supplement the financial resources of a household associated with ensuring the essential needs of a child.10 A total of 1.9% of the total set of the Roma population said that they drew the allowance for the birth of a child,11

Graph 10.2 Drawing of different types of other pensions in the Roma population by type of settlement (in %) Segregated

Separated

Diffused

6 5.1

4.8

5 4

3.6

3 2.1 2

1.7 1.7

1

1.6 0.5

0.3

0 Widowed

Orphaned

Disability

Note: Respondents who did not answer the question were not taken into consideration.

10 http://www.upsvar.sk/socialne-veci-a-rodina/statne-socialne-davky/prispevok-pri-narodeni-dietata.html?page_id=1190.

11 With the calculation of these values and other data on the drawing of family benefits, those respondents who did not answer the question were not taken into consideration.

12 Data about the size of the population age 18+ years in 2010 (4,405,673 persons) comes from the Slovstat database. The average number of persons drawing the child bonus could be determined also for a different age group; the selection of 18 years as the limit is arbitrary.

189

R E P O R T O N T H E L I V I N G CO N D I T I O N S O F R O MA H O U S E H O L D S I N S LO VA K I A 2010

child allowance is the most extensive state social support benefit.”. In 2010 a sum of EUR 21.99 was paid out for each unprovided for child. The average number of monthly recipients in Slovakia in 2010 was 706,328 persons, which represented approximately 16% of the population age 18 years and older (Report..., 2011).

In the surveyed set of the Roma population every fifth person drew the child allowance, and in the subset of those age 18 years and older the share was 26% (differences between the monitored types of settlements were minimal). Along with the child allowance a bonus is provided which is a direct benefit for parents who receive an old-age pension, early old-age pension, a retirement pension, a disability pension, and who do not perform any gainful activities and who did not receive the tax bonus for a child. The child bonus was paid out in the amount of EUR 10.31. A total of 16% of those persons to whom the child allowance was paid said that they were also recipients of the child bonus. In comparisons with estimates for the whole population, this means a high share is involved. According to the Report on the social situation of the population of the Slovak Republic for 2010 the average monthly number of recipients of the bonus was 4,033 persons. If we compare this number with the average monthly number of recipients of the child allowance, then we see that only 0.6% of them draw it.

In the Roma population this share was many times higher. In the geographically close general population the child allowance was provided to 12.6% of persons and 1.6% of them also received the child bonus. Since the bonus to the child allowance is a direct benefit which is intended for vulnerable categories, its significantly higher occurrence in the Roma population indirectly indicates the worse income conditions in comparison with the geographically close general population and with the entire population of the Slovak Republic.

The care of small children is supported institutionally through a set of state interventions. From the viewpoint of function the most important part of this is the parental allowance, which is intended for parents caring regularly and daily for a child to the age of three years (and in the case of a long-term unfavourable state to six years). Since 2010 the introduction of two levels of parental allowance has been involved. A monthly sum of EUR 256 was set for parents who prior to the origin of a claim for a parental benefit were on paid maternity leave or who paid disability insurance for at least 270 days during the last two years pri-

190

or to the birth of the child. A sum of EUR 164.22 was paid in the remaining cases, and then also linked to a higher sum after the child reaches two years of age. In the Roma population 7.5% of persons received the parental allowance (the differences between the types of settlements were small), and 83% of them received the allowance in the lower amount (EUR 164.22) and 14.5% in the higher amount (EUR 256).13 The lower sum most often occurred in diffused settlements (88%), and the higher in separated settlements (19.4%). In the geographically close general population the parental allowance was paid to 3.4% of persons, while the share of the higher sums, which are linked to more exacting conditions regarding previous employment and participation in social insurance, was 39%, which is approximately two-times higher than the share in the Roma population.14 Of individual age 18 years and older (inclusive) 12% of Roma drew the parental allowance (in 82% of cases this involved the lower sum) and 4% of persons belonging to the geographically close general population drew the allowance.

10.3.4. Unemployment benefits Unemployment benefits are paid on the basis of the insurance principle – from unemployment insurance. The unemployment benefit is provided for six months and is derived from the amount of previous income. In this regard it involves a benefit whose justification criteria are demanding to fulfil in the environment of endangered communities. Unlike the above-mentioned benefits, in the case of the unemployment benefit the drawing of it was surveyed in a longer time horizon – respondents were asked to tell whether they had drawn this benefit at some point in the past 5 years. In the Roma population 12% of the entire set drew this benefit, most often those from segregated settlements (15%); in separated communities and among those living diffused, this occurred less often (11.4% and 10.2%). Data about the recipients of the unemployment benefit are suitable to associate in regard to those who can exert a claim for the benefit. We will take note of the population age 18 to 59 years (inclusive). In this group 21% of Roma received the unemployment benefit. The benefit occurred most often in segregated settlements, where every fourth person had experience with it. Within the geographically close general population 5.5% of the entire surveyed set drew this benefit and 9.4% of persons age 18 to 59 years.15

13 A total of 2.5% of recipients did not respond to the question about the amount of their parental allowance.

14 As is graphically presented in Chapter 9, only a very small portion of Roma women and men fulfil this condition. The current setting practically excludes the possibility of receiving the higher parental allowance for all without a current or recent more permanent experience with a job with guaranteed social insurance payments, which is the majority of the surveyed Roma population, including those of fertile age. The question arises whether this goal was not the hidden intention of the last legislative modification of the parental allowance (for more, see: Debrecéniová, 2010).

15 In relation to the measured very high unemployment of the Roma population, the share of such recipients is, however, very small, and in comparison with the measure of unemployment of the general population is also lower (see Chapter 9). The level of unemployment and the course and quality of employment of the Roma population excludes the majority of them from an unemployment benefit claim.

R E P O R T O N T H E L I V I N G CO N D I T I O N S O F R O MA H O U S E H O L D S I N S LO VA K I A 2010

Table 10.10 Distribution of total net incomes in Roma households by type of settlement and in comparison with the geographically close general population (in %)

To EUR 150 EUR 151-300 EUR 301-450 EUR 451-600 EUR 601-750 EUR 751 and more Households total

Roma households Segregated Separated Diffuse Total 9.3 10.8 11.2 31.7 34.6 28.1 31.7 26.9 28.1 13.5 13.9 12.4 6.1 6.1 8.6 7.7 7.7 11.6 100.0 100.0 100.0

Households from the geographically close general population 10.5 31.4 28.8 13.2 7.0 9.1 100.0

10.9 5.6 12.5 11.2 11.5 48.3 100.0

Note: With the calculations of total incomes those households which did not give any data about either social or work incomes were not taken into consideration (26 households).

10.4. Total incomes The total income of households is calculated by counting both work and social incomes.16 Since in both cases the net monthly income was surveyed (for the month preceding the month of the survey), and the resulting total income is the net monthly income, which is a key indicator of standard of living. This is the net disposable income which a household can directly use. The most commonly represented income interval in the set of all Roma households was the interval from EUR 151 to EUR 300, in which more than 31% of all households fit with their net monthly income. Some 10.5% of Roma households were in the lowest income interval up to EUR 150, and over 9% of households were in the highest interval. Households living diffused showed higher representation in the two highest income intervals. It’s possible to observe a different form of income distribution in the geographically close general population. While the share of households in the lowest income categories was similar to the share in the set of Roma households, the representation of other income intervals differed. The share of households with an income from EUR 151 to EUR 450 was significantly lower than

in the Roma households. The largest share, however, can be observed with the highest incomes. While not quite one-tenth of Roma households had an income over EUR 751, in the set of the general population this was nearly half of all households (Table 10.10).

The average net total income in the set of Roma households represented EUR 396;17 the median had a value of EUR 335. The highest average income was achieved in diffused households (EUR 417) and the lowest in households from segregated settlements (EUR 380). For the general households from the geographically close general population the average net income was approximately two-times higher (EUR 806).

As it is shown in Graph 10.3, which depicts the distribution of net monthly incomes in the individual categories in the subset of households from diffuse and separated settlements, a number of remote values occurred. These could influence the average values of the incomes obtained. The graph shows graphically the character of income distribution in the individual types of settlements and through the median or the interquartile interval (the dotted line shows the value of the average income for the entire set of Roma households). On the basis of outcomes of the ANOVA procedure, it is possible

Table 10.11 Average total net incomes in Roma households by type of settlement and in the geographically close general population (in EUR) Average income Standard (in EUR) error Segregated Separated Diffused Households from the geographically close general population

380 387 417 806

14.2 16.9 18.5 31.2

Confidence interval (95%) Lower limit Upper limit 352.1 407.9 354.1 420.7 381.2 454.2 744.2 867.1

Note: With the calculations of total incomes those households which did not give any data about either social or work incomes were not taken into consideration (26 households).

16 With the calculations of total incomes those households which did not give any data about social or work incomes were not taken into consideration (26 households).

17 The 95-percent confidence interval was limited as follows: lower limit = EUR 376, upper limit = EUR 414.

191

R E P O R T O N T H E L I V I N G CO N D I T I O N S O F R O MA H O U S E H O L D S I N S LO VA K I A 2010

Graph 10.3 Distribution of total net incomes in the set of Roma households by type of settlement (in EUR) Total income 2000,00

1500,00

1000,00

500,00

0,00 Diffused

Segregated

Separated

to state that no statistically significant differences in net monthly incomes exist between the households from different types of settlements defined on the basis of spatial integration.

As we have already mentioned in the previous section, with an analysis of incomes it is necessary to consider the size of the household. For this purpose we use income calculated for one member of the household, which we label as “income per capita”. The average net monthly income per capita represented in Roma households EUR 107. The highest was in the subset of diffused households (EUR 119), the lowest in segregated households (EUR 99). And after consideration of household size, it applies that the highest monthly income occurred in households living diffused, and with decreasing spatial integration the amount of average income per capita decreased. The ANOVA procedure showed that among average incomes of households from different environments statistically significant differences exist in the lev-

el of significance α = 0.05.18 On the basis of a Bonferroni post hoc test it is possible to specify that a statistically significant difference exists in the total incomes per capita between segregated and diffused households.

In the set of households representing the geographically close general population the average net monthly income per household member was EUR 305, which is nearly three-times the average for the whole Roma set and more than two-and-a-half times the average income of diffused households, whose income characteristics are closest to those of the general population (Table 10.12).

Similarly as with work or social incomes, net total monthly incomes were also categorised into income intervals. The largest share of Roma households ended up in the income interval EUR 51 to EUR 100 per capita (nearly 42%). The second largest group was the lowest interval: one-fifth of Roma households had an income to EUR 50 per each household member. Thus, a total of 62% of Roma households had a monthly income to EUR 100 per capita. If we look to the other end of the income distribution, then approximately one in ten Roma households had an income of more than EUR 200 per capita. The distribution of incomes differed moderately by type of settlement: the lowest income interval was most represented among households from separated and segregated settlements. The share of households with an income per capita up to EUR 50 was here more than 5 percentage points higher than in the case of diffused households (21% to 16%). In the representations of the middle income categories there are not any significant differences between the three types of monitored settlements. On the other hand, the highest income – over EUR 200 per capita – occurred more often in diffused households (15.4%) than in segregated (7%) or separated (10.4%).

The amount of total incomes can be determined by different facts. Among the most important is the position of household members in relation to the labour market.

As we have already mentioned, approximately one-

Table 10.12 Average total incomes “per capita” in Roma households by type of housing and in households of the geographically close general population (in EUR) Average income (in EUR) Segregated Separated Diffused Households of the geographically close general population

99 102 119 305

Standard error 4.7 5.4 5.7 10.9

Confidence interval (95%) Lower limit Upper limit 89.9 108.5 92.3 113.4 107.8 130.2 283.7 326.7

Note: With the calculations of total incomes those households which did not give any data about either social or work incomes were not taken into consideration (26 households).

192

18 The value of the testing criteria F was 3.9 with two degrees of freedom (Levene‘s test of homogeneity of variances was not statistically significant, so that the procedure could be applied).

R E P O R T O N T H E L I V I N G CO N D I T I O N S O F R O MA H O U S E H O L D S I N S LO VA K I A 2010

Table 10.13 Distribution of total incomes “per capita” by type of settlement and in households of the geographically close general population (in %)

To EUR 50 EUR 51-100 EUR 101-150 EUR 151-200 EUR 201 and more Households total

Roma households Segregated Separated Diffused Total 21.3 22.3 15.7 42.6 41.6 41.6 19.7 16.9 17.6 9.4 8.8 9.7 7.0 10.4 15.4 100.0 100.0 100.0

Househods from the geographically close general population 19.7 41.9 18.0 9.3 11.1 100.0

11.0 2.8 5.0 9.1 72.1 100.0

Note: With the calculations of total incomes those households which did not give any data about either social or work incomes were not taken into consideration (26 households).

quarter of Roma households indicated having a work income. At the same time this could involve a work income of one or several household members. Table 10.14 shows that the number of working members of a household differentiates the total income per capita. The average total incomes for Roma households where no one worked were lower than incomes of households with working member/members. With just one working person a significant increase is shown in the average income. At the same time, it applies for Roma households that with an increase in the number of working members, the average total income per capita increases. Income per capita in the case of Roma households with three or more working members was more than EUR 100 higher in comparison with the income of households where only one member worked. On the basis of results of the ANOVA procedure it’s possible to state that between households with different number of working members statistically significant differences existed in the level of significance α = 0.001.19 A Bonferroni post hoc test showed that statistically significant differences in the total incomes per capita were between all four categories of Roma households, with the exception of the difference between households with one and with two working members. And in the geographically close general population we find a similar effect from the number of working members on the household in-

come; the incomes here, however, move on a higher level than in the set of Roma households.

In one of the preceding parts of this chapter we showed the relationship between the number of children and social incomes. The presence of children works also on total income – the average income calculated for each member of a household decreases with an increasing number of children. Roma households with children to age 6 years (inclusive) have a lower income than Roma households without such children (EUR 86 or less to EUR 135). This also applies for households with children to age 18 years (inclusive), where households without children in the given age are shown to have a significantly higher income (EUR 125 and less to EUR 166). At the same time it applies that Roma households with small children have a lower income per capita in comparison with households where older children (also) live.

Also in the set of the geographically close general population the total income per capita decreased with a growing number of children; the drop, however, took place for the higher income level. Unlike social incomes, where the geographically close households with children to age 6 years were worse in this respect than Roma households, total incomes of households with small children are in the set of the general population many times higher (compare Tables 10.15 and 10.16).

Table 10.14 Average total incomes per capita in Roma households by number of working members in the household (in EUR) Average income (in EUR) No one working 1 working 2 working 3 working

90 150 168 276

Standard error 2.5 8.9 18.3 42.4

Confidence interval (95%) Lower limit Upper limit 85.3 95.3 132.2 167.9 130.8 204.8 187.9 364.7

Note: With the calculations of total incomes those households which did not give any data about either social or work incomes were not taken into consideration (26 households).

19 The testing criterion F had a value of 63.2 with three degrees of freedom (since Levene’s test of homogeneity of variance was not statistically significant, it was possible to apply the procedure).

193

R E P O R T O N T H E L I V I N G CO N D I T I O N S O F R O MA H O U S E H O L D S I N S LO VA K I A 2010

Table 10.15 Average total incomes “per capita” in Roma households by number of children to age 6 years and to age 18 years (in EUR) Average income (in EUR)

Standard error

Confidence interval (95%) Lower limit Upper limit

Households with children to age 6 years 1 child 2 children 3 and more children Households with children to age 18 years 1 child 2 children 3 and more children

86 74 58

4.5 4.4 3.1

77.4 65.3 52.1

94.9 82.8 64.5

125 87 64

7.3 4.1 2.1

110.5 79.0 60.1

139.6 95.1 68.6

Note: This involves households with children to age 6 years and to age 18 years. Average total income per capita in the case of Roma households without children to age 6 years was EUR 135, in the case of households without children to age 18 years EUR 166.

10.5. Deprivation in the field of consumption and the occurrence of arrears The living standard of the Roma population is, alongside income, also followed with the help of other specific groups of indicators. On one hand the capability of providing a certain type of consumption and financial reserve was surveyed; on the other the identification of different types of arrears was involved. Both groups of indicators measure the occurrence of difficulties of a material and financial character. They help supplement the picture obtained on the basis of data on social and work incomes, conditions of living and the furnishing of households with long-term consumer goods which are presented above (Chapter 6).

Indicators related to the ability to provide a certain type of consumption were used also with regard to the fact that they are regularly used in the EU SILC survey, which covers the entire population of the Slovak Republic.

Part of them are related to consumption which can be

labelled as essential for a standard level of living allowing all basic needs to be covered and participation in common social activities (meat every other day, new seasonal clothing). Others help identify the living standard of households through whether they are capable, alongside daily household management, to create savings as protection against unexpected events. The last of the four indicators is not related to basic needs in the sense of essential conditions for survival but shows participation in activities which are perceived in society as standard ways of spending free time and whose absence has no direct impact on a family but can lead to the reduction of its social status. The indicators used thus cover different “levels” of needs and allow deliberation about possible material deprivation in broader senses.

The data obtained shows that Roma households have problems with securing some basics as well as “luxurious” types of goods. Not quite one-fifth were able to provide food with meat or fish (or the vegetarian equivalent) every other day. In the end only one-tenth could afford new seasonal clothing or shoes,20 which

Table 10.16 Average total incomes “per capita” in households of the geographically close general population by number of children age to 6 and to 18 years (in EUR) Average income (in EUR)

Standard error

Confidence interval (95%) Lower limit Upper limit

Households with children to 6 years* 1 child 2 children

233 206

19.9 34.7

192.7 130.6

273.4 281.6

1 child 2 children 3 and more children

251 215 143

23.7 17.4 30.4

203.7 180.3 79.4

299.2 250.6 207.1

Households with children to 18 years

Note: This involves households with children to age 6 years and to age 18 years inclusive. Average total income per capita in the case of households from the geographically close general population without children to age 6 years was EUR 321, in the case of households without children to age 18 years EUR 348. *For this type of household we not offer data about households with three children due to the very low number of cases (n = 2).

194

20 This involves clothing or shoes which are not “second hand”.

R E P O R T O N T H E L I V I N G CO N D I T I O N S O F R O MA H O U S E H O L D S I N S LO VA K I A 2010

Graph 10.4 The capability to provide selected items in Roma households – comparison with households of the geographically close general population (in %) 0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

1.5

Week-long holiday away from home each year

34.4 5.7

Cover unexpected expenditures of EUR 300

56.7 9.1

New seasonal clothing or shoes each year

45.3 18.9

Meat, fish or vegetarian equivalent every other day

57.2 Roma households

points out a significant limitation with stigmatising impact for households with children. In the case of unexpected events which would require financial expenditures, only 5.7% of Roma households were capable of setting aside a sum of EUR 300 without having to borrow it. The living standard measured through these indicators was significantly higher in the geographically close general population. More than half of households had food from meat or fish every other day. The purchase of new seasonal clothing or shoes was also a significantly more common event in the geographically close general population. The capability of creating a financial reserve for a case of unexpected events was principally different in both sets.

While in the Roma population a financial reserve in the amount of EUR 300 occurred only marginally, among the geographically close general population it was more or less standard (more than half of the set had it available). A week-long holiday away from home also represented a problem for the general population; however, to a much smaller measure than for Roma households (Graph 10.4).

General households

Behind the overall very unfavourable situation of Roma households it is possible to uncover differences between the categories defined by type of settlement. The main dividing line can be drawn between households living diffused on one hand and households from separated and segregated settlements on the other (Graph 10.5).

Diffused households were shown to have much better material conditions: the share of households which did not have difficulties was higher than all of the other monitored groups. The most significant differences were found with the purchase of seasonal clothing/shoes and with covering unexpected expenditures (5.4% versus 14.2% and 3.3% versus 9.6%).

The fact that households exist which cannot afford some of the mentioned items makes a strong statement about the conditions they live in. However, with interpretations it is necessary to take into consideration the accumulation of difficulties. In such cases it leads to a deepening of material deprivation and to an intensifying of the negative consequences. We saw that the share of households which could not afford meat (or the vegetarian equivalent) every other day was high. The

Graph 10.5 Capability of providing selected items in Roma households by type of settlement (in %) 0 Week-long holiday away from home each year

5 0

10

15

20

25

0.8 3.8

Cover unexpected expenditures of EUR 300

3.3 4.1

9.6 5.4

New seasonal clothing or shoes each year

7.8 14.2 17.6 17.9

Meat, fish or vegetarian equivalent every other day Segregated

Separated

Diffused

21.3

195

R E P O R T O N T H E L I V I N G CO N D I T I O N S O F R O MA H O U S E H O L D S I N S LO VA K I A 2010

Table 10.17 Occurrence of arrears with regular payments in Roma households – comparison with households from the geographically close general population (in %) Roma households

Households from the geographically close general population

Once

Two times or more

Groceries Electricity supply Water supply Heating Rent. mortgage

8.6 12.4 8.3 5.1 8.3

Once

Two times or more

38.1 28.8 19.9 24.0 20.4

1.9 3.3 2.2 2.1 2.1

4.1 3.7 4.0 4.3 4.1

Question: Since the beginning of the year has your household, due to financial difficulties, found itself unable to pay regular payments for the following items...?

Note: Households which did not respond to the question were not taken into consideration. With the items water, electricity, heating and rent/mortgage even the occrrence of households which said that their payment for the given item “doesn’t apply” were also not taken into consideration.

same applies for the purchase of new seasonal clothing.

It also shows that the share of households which could not afford one or the other was likewise very high: more than three-quarters of Roma households could not afford one of the two listed items, and most of such cases were in segregated settlements (81.2%).

This weighty combination of difficulties affects a large majority of the Roma population, unlike households from the geographically close general population.

There the share of households with accumulated shortages is significantly lower, although it still involves a rather significant share (38.9%). The range of deprivation did not principally change even when we consider only those households which could afford the above-mentioned two items and didn’t have even EUR 300 for covering an unexpected event. Some 78% of Roma households had to deal with such a situation. It’s obvious that difficulties with dealing with the individual items overlapped in a large portion of the Roma households. In the

set comprising the geographically close households it is possible to observe a different situation. With an increase in the number of items which households could not afford, the share of deprived households dropped (30%).

The second group of indicators related to arrears due to financial difficulties. At the centre of attention were arrears with regular payments which are essential for the running of a household. The obtained data confirms (Table 10.17) that a large portion of Roma households have difficulties with providing basic functions. Furthermore, the majority of households with such difficulties experience them repeatedly. Up to 38% of Roma households had problems with paying for groceries twotimes or more, and for 8.6% it happened once. Nearly half of Roma households experienced (once or more) a serious situation of financial shortages threatening the covering of basic needs. Payments associated with housing were also problematic: 41.2% of Roma households were not capable of paying regular payments for supplies of

Graph 10.6 Occurrence of arrears in Roma households by type of settlement (in %) 60 Segregated

50.7 50 43.9

46

Diffused

44.7 39.8

40

Separated

38.9

35.2 29.7

30

25.6

25

33.8

31.7

21.8

26.2

24

20 10 0 Groceries

196

Electricity supply

Water supply

Heating

Rent/mortgage

Note: The graph presents together one-time or repeated arrears. Households which did not respond and households who said that their payments for a given item don’t apply were not included in the calculations (with the exception of groceries).

R E P O R T O N T H E L I V I N G CO N D I T I O N S O F R O MA H O U S E H O L D S I N S LO VA K I A 2010

electricity and 29% of Roma households experienced such a situation more than once. Every fifth household had similar repeated arrears for water and nearly every fourth with heating. The fact that payment of rent/mortgage represented a recurrent problem for up to one-fifth of Roma households also threatens the stability and quality of housing for Roma households. The geographically close general population do not run across a similar range of financial difficulties. Arrears for regular payments were also discovered here, but in a significantly lower measure than in the set of Roma households.

It is impossible to clearly determine which type of settlement is for Roma households in terms of financial difficulties most at risk. Graph 10.6 shows what portion of households got into a situation one time or more when they were unable to pay on time for an item associated with housing and subsistence. None of the types of set-

tlements is characterised by having a higher occurrence of arrears than the others for all of the monitored items.

Arrears for supplies of electricity, water and rent occurred more among among households from separated communities, arrears for heating with households living diffused, problems with the purchase of groceries related most often to households from segregated settlements – there every second household was affected.

Conclusions In this chapter we offered a look at three selected aspects of standard of living – the income situation, deprivation in the area of consumption and the occurrence of arrears.

Total incomes of Roma households are on a significantly lower level than the incomes of the geographically close

BOX 10.4: THE THREAT TO WOMEN AND MEN IN POVERTY The lagging of women in the Slovak Republic in the average amount of work income by approximately one-quarter behind men, together with handicaps they face in relation to the labour market (especially the large share of women outside of economic activity), reduces their lifelong savings and pensions and leads to a higher risk of their falling into poverty. The lower wages of women not only influence the amount of their pension but also all disability benefits, health care and social insurance, which are derived from income (the unemployment benefit, medical benefits, sickness benefits, disability retirement, etc.).

Data from social insurance, for example, showed that in 2010 the average pension for women was EUR 315 – EUR 85 less than the pension for men (78.7% of the average pension for men). This is subsequently expressed in the danger of poverty: the measure of the risk of poverty for women in retirement is two-times higher than men in retirement (6.1% to 3.9%) and the measure of risk of poverty for women age 65 years and older is three-times higher than for men. And the measure of material deprivation (involuntary lack of satisfactory needs in regard to a level and way which are common in society as a consequence of lack of resources) for women over age 65 years is 8% higher than for men.

Comparison of selected indicators of the social situation for women and men (2010, in EUR and %) Men

Women

Difference

Share in %

Pension (in EUR) Measure of poverty risk – total (in %) Measure of poverty risk 0-17 Measure of poverty risk 18-64 Measure of poverty risk 65+ Measure of poverty risk – in retirement Measure of poverty risk – outside of economic activity Measure of poverty risk – individual Share of persons age 18-59 living in households where no member is employed

400 10.1 15.3 5.8 4.5 3.9 13.8 19.6 7.6

315 11.9 18.6 6.3 14.8 6.1 17.2 24.5 8.7

-85 +1.8 +3.3 +0.5 +10.3 +2.2 +3.4 +4.9 +1.1

78.7 117.8 121.6 108.6 328.9 156.4 124.6 125.0 114.5

Measure of material deprivation – total (%) Measure of material deprivation 0-17 Measure of material deprivation 18-64 Measure of material deprivation 65+

23.1 28.8 21.3 24.9

25.8 27.7 23.7 33.2

+2.7 -1.1 +2.4 +8.3

111.7 96.2 111.3 133.3

Source: Report on the social situation of the population of the Slovak Republic for 2010. Bratislava, Ministry of Labour, Social Affairs and Family of the SR 2011; Survey of incomes and living conditions EU SILC 2009. Bratislava, Statistical Office of the SR 2010.

Note: The newest public data on poverty from 2010 (EU-SILC), collected in the field in 2009, addresses the situation in 2008, when the economic crisis had only just begun. In view of this it can be assumed that the situation in 2009 will be significantly worse.

Data from EU-SILC for recent years record a higher risk of women with poverty in comparison with men for both the entire population and for individual subgroups. Women showed a higher risk of poverty for all age categories, and the risk of poverty in comparison with the Slovak-wide average increases in women outside of economic activity (17.2%) and women living alone (24.5%; individuals - men 19.6%); the highest danger of poverty is among the unemployed (up to 48.9%), then two-parent families with 3 and more children (36%), and singleparent families with children (24.6%), which covers about 90% of all women.

197

R E P O R T O N T H E L I V I N G CO N D I T I O N S O F R O MA H O U S E H O L D S I N S LO VA K I A 2010

general population. The highest incomes were in households living diffused, the lowest in households from segregated settlements. Differences in total incomes between the individual subsets, however, were not significant â&#x20AC;&#x201C; in comparison with differences between Roma and the geographically close general population.

It was confirmed that the total income per capita in Roma households is significantly differentiated by the number of working members (a higher number working leads to a higher income). Another differentiating factor is the number of children to age 6 years and to age 18 years, where a growth in the number of children meant a decline in per capita income.

The benefit in material need, which is drawn by every other Roma household, played an important role among social transfers. For a comparison â&#x20AC;&#x201C; in the set of the geographically close general population this was 4% of households. The housing allowance, which represents an important supplement to the minimal income, was drawn by 58% of households on the benefit in material need. This share strongly varied in the individual types of settlements â&#x20AC;&#x201C; the highest was in diffused settlements (77%), the lowest in segregated settlements (48%). The activation allowance, to which citizens living in material need and those appraised along with them have a claim, has

198

an important function in the system of minimum income.

A total of 30% of Roma in the productive age of 16-54 years (inclusive) who lived in households drawing the benefit in material need received this allowance. Most of them were among Roma from segregated settlements (37%).

The protection allowance is drawn by 3% of Roma age 1654 years who lived in households on the benefit in material need. It appears that only a portion of the entitled population uses the possibility of supplementing the minimum social income. Among the family benefits the most commonly used are the child bonus (26% of Roma age 18 years and more) and the parental allowance (12% of Roma age 18 years and older).

A significant portion of Roma households is exposed to the risk of deprivation in the field of consumption. Only not quite one-fifth could afford meat (or the vegetarian equivalent) every other day, and not quite one-tenth could afford new seasonal clothing. The possibility of accumulating savings of EUR 300 occurred only very rarely in Roma households (not quite 6%). Data on the occurrence of arrears for regular purchases or services associated with housing indicate a great vulnerability. The geographically close general population showed in the given indicators a significantly lower danger of deprivation and financial difficulties.

11

Extreme deprivation and subjective evaluation of the living situation versus work and income

The preceding chapter outlined deficits in covering selected needs of Roma households on the basis of standard indicators of material deprivation used in common statistical surveys. As was shown, the surveyed Roma households are stricken in a wide range by deprivation and significantly more so than geographically close general households or the average household in Slovakia. In view of the fact that the survey was directed at a socially weak environment, it was expanded by indicators of extreme deprivation, as many experts recommend for a survey of poverty (see, for example, Box 10.1). Aside from income and material deprivation the subjective evaluation of the financial situation of the household and its future development were also added. Thus, extreme deprivation as well as a subjective evaluation of the situation is examined in the following subchapter through the amount of income and the work involvement of members of the surveyed households.

Graph 11.1 Roma households by occurrence of the situation “didn’t have anything to feed their children” (in %)

9.4

44.5

46.1

Yes, once

11.1. Extreme deprivation: food for children, cooking and heating In regard to the first subject noted – extreme deprivation – this was surveyed in the study through three shortage situations. Specifically, this involved the following signs covering shortages in the most basic of needs: there was nothing to give children to eat, there was no way to cook or warm up food and there was no heating in the dwelling. The occurrence and recurrence of each of the mentioned situations were surveyed in households.

Graph 11.1 presents the result for the real absence of food for children. As was shown, more than 55% of Roma households with children have at some time ex-

Yes, more than once

No, never

Question: Have you ever got into a situation when you really didn’t have anything to feed your children?

(The “head of the household” responded to the question.)

Note: Calculated for the relevant households (i. e. households with a child).

perienced this situation, and most have experience it repeatedly (9.4% once and 46.1% more times). This is a relatively alarming finding, especially in the context of preparing and submitting proposed changes in social benefits and allowances from last year which were together targeted for reduction.1 According to type of settlement, the situation occurred in which there was nothing to feed children most often in those living segregated (a total of 61.7%) and

Table 11.1 Roma households by occurrence of the situation “didn’t have anything to feed their children” (in %) Segregated Yes, once Yes, more than once No, never Households total

Separated 10.8 50.9 38.3 100.0

Diffused 10.6 47.2 42.2 100.0

Total 6.6 39.8 53.6 100.0

9.4 46.1 44.5 100.0

Question: Have you ever got into a situation when you really didn’t have anything to feed your children? (The “head of the household” responded to the question).

Note: Calculated for the relevant households (i. e. households with a child).

1 Let’s recall, for example, a proposal for restructuring the benefit in material need with the strengthening of its “deservedness” and the lowering of the basic benefit, possibly a proposal for pre-formatting the parental benefit, whose full amount should be conditioned by participation in social insurance (see proposal for a new law on the benefit in material need from the Ministry of Labour, Social Affairs and Family of the SR from 2 August 2011 or the proposed amendment of the law on the parental allowance and the law on the allowance for the birth of a child, which was prepared by a group of MPs from the Slovak National Council from the SDKÚ-DS and SaS political parties under the leadership of Ľudovít Kaník from 1 March 2011).

199

R E P O R T O N T H E L I V I N G CO N D I T I O N S O F R O MA H O U S E H O L D S I N S LO VA K I A 2010

Graph 11.2 Roma households by occurrence of the situation “didn’t have anything to feed their children” – comparison with the households from the geographically close general population (in %) 0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

9.4

Yes, once

4.1 46.1

Yes, more than once

6.9 44.5

No, never

89.0 Roma households

Geographically close general households

Question: Have you ever got into a situation when you really didn’t have anything to feed your children? (The “head of the household” responded to the question.)

Note: Calculated for the relevant households (i. e. households with a child).

then separated (57.8%); the lowest occurrence was recorded for Roma households living diffused – 46.4%.

On the basis of this indicator it seems as if integration contributed to the improved living conditions, at least partially, although those in the diffused parts of Roma households still know this type of extreme deprivation. The share of households which had never experienced not having something to feed their children surpassed 53.6% for those living diffused, while for separated this was 11% less (42.2%) and for segregated households a further 4% less (38.3%). However, in comparison with the geographically close general population, even the diffused Roma households were lagging well behind (53.6% to 89% not knowing such an experience).

In comparison with geographically close general households with children a great difference was evident in this indicator of extreme deprivation: while a total of 55.5% of Roma households with children had experienced having a genuine situation in which they did not have anything to feed their children, within the geographically close general households with children this was only 11%. The largest difference was shown with the recurrence of this situation – as much as 46.1% of Roma households experienced this more than one time and from the geographically close general households with children 6.9%. Thus, in the case of Roma households the recurrence of a lack of food for their children was nearly seven-times more common than in the geographically close general households.

Graph 11.3 Average total net monthly income for Roma households by occurrence of the situation “didn’t have anything to feed their children” and type of housing – comparison with households from the geographically close general population (in EUR) 0 Segregated

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

1000

no, never yes, one time

562 398

900

535

352 387

Separated

800

508

yes, more than one time 605

Diffused

655

366 571

Roma households total Geographically close general households

200

385

480

805

926 908

Question: Have you ever got into a situation when you really didn’t have anything to feed your children? (The “head of the household” responded to the question.)

Note: Calculated for the relevant households (i. e. households with a child). Income was surveyed for the month preceding the month of data collection.

R E P O R T O N T H E L I V I N G CO N D I T I O N S O F R O MA H O U S E H O L D S I N S LO VA K I A 2010

Graph 11.4 Average monthly income per household member by occurrence of the situation “didn’t have anything to feed their children” – for individual types of Roma settlements and in comparison with households from the geographically close general population (in EUR) 0

50

100

150 131 128

Segregated 86 Separated

250

300

350

400

no, never yes, one time 156

98 89

Diffused

200

yes, more than one time

162 154

98

151

Roma households total

90

125 345

Geographically close general households

252

288

Question: Have you ever got into a situation when you really didn’t have anything to feed your children? (The “head of the household” responded to the question.)

Note: Calculated for the relevant households (i. e. households with a child). Income was surveyed for the month preceding the month of data collection.

The occurrence of a situation when a household did not have any food for a child, especially its repeated recurrence, is very closely connected with the declared overall amount of household income (social plus work incomes from all common economic members of the household). Roma households where such a situation at some time occurred declared a significantly lower monthly income (income surveyed for the preceding month) than those who had never experienced a lack of

food for their children. The average monthly income for Roma households which repeatedly did not have food for children was EUR 385, while the monthly income for Roma households with a rare occurrence of this situation was approximately EUR 100 higher (EUR 480), and finally, Roma households which had never experienced a lack of food for children had a total income of near EUR 600 (EUR 571). Household income thus to a significant measure intervenes into the sustenance of children.

Graph 11.5 Estimated income for problem-free survival by occurrence of the situation “didn’t have anything to feed their children” – for individual types of Roma settlements and in comparison with households from the geographically close general population (average per household member, in EUR) 0

100

200

Segregated 179 Separated

Diffused

Roma households total Geographically close general households

184 174

182

178

300

400

223 246

500

600

no, never yes, one time

225

226

yes, more than one time 255

236 217

252

288

345

Question: Have you ever got into a situation when you really didn’t have anything to feed your children? / What should be the minimum amount of your net monthly household income so that this income allows you a normal life? (The “head of the household” responded to the question.)

Note: Calculated for the relevant households (i. e. households with a child).

201

R E P O R T O N T H E L I V I N G CO N D I T I O N S O F R O MA H O U S E H O L D S I N S LO VA K I A 2010

Graph 11.6 Average number of working members by occurrence of the situation “didn’t have anything to feed their children” – for individual types of Roma settlements and in comparison with households from the geographically close general population (in persons) 0.0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.3

Segregated 0.1

0.8

1.0

1.2

no, never

0.2

yes, one time 0.4

Separated 0.2

yes, more than one time

0.3 0.6

Diffused

0.3

0.4 0.4

Roma households total

0.2

0.3

Geographically close general households

1.1 0.9

1.0

Question: Have you ever got into a situation when you really didn’t have anything to feed your children? (The “head of the household” responded to the question.)

Note: Calculated for the relevant households (i. e. households with a child).

202

The calculation of total income which a household received in the course of the previous month per one member of the household shows this in even more relief. For Roma households which repeatedly recorded problems with food for children, the average income per one member came out EUR 90; with the occasional occurrence of lack of food for children this was EUR 125, and for Roma households without such an experience it was EUR 151 per member. According to the results found it seems as if an income lower than EUR 100 per household member was a threat to the ability to feed children.

And as Graph 11.5 on estimated income shows, for trouble-free survival the surveyed Roma households would need nearly double the income calculated per household member. While the declared income for Roma households which got into the situation of not having food for a child more than one time was EUR 90 per member, for problem-free survival it would be EUR 178 per member, which is EUR 88 more. For Roma households which experienced a one-time lack of food for a child, the income needed per household member was higher by EUR 92 (EUR 217) and for Roma households without the experience of lack of food for children it was EUR 85 more (EUR 236).

The amount of declared real and estimated income needed was only moderately different by degree of segregation of Roma households. Their proportion in the case of households with experience of repeated lack of food for children for the subset of households living segregated was EUR 86 to EUR 179 per member, for those living separated EUR 89 to EUR 174 and for those living diffused EUR 98 to EUR 182.

Large differences in the real and the estimated needed income appear with a comparison between Roma households and the geographically close general households and do so in all three groups by experience with the situation of lack of food for children. Real income for general households was on average 2-3-times higher, and with estimated income needed for problem-free survival the difference in the given sums calculated per member was on the level of EUR 200 to 300. While Roma households without the experience of a lack of food for children estimated the needed income per member to be EUR 236, for the same general households this was EUR 520; on the other had Roma households with repeated recurrence of the situation of not having enough food for children gave the needed income per member as EUR 178, and geographically close general households listed EUR 372. The demands of Roma households for income were shown to be significantly more modest than the demands of general households.

And monitoring the occurrence of the situation “didn’t have anything to feed their children” pointed to the importance and the significance of the work activity of household members. It was shown that the fewer working members in a household, the more growth of the occurrence of not having anything to feed children, and the opposite. For Roma households which experienced a lack of food for children, the average number of working members came out to be only 0.2 (in the case of segregated only 0.1 and for those living diffused 0.3 members); with Roma households where such an experience did not occur at all, the average working was 0.4 members (for segregate only 0.3 and for those liv-

R E P O R T O N T H E L I V I N G CO N D I T I O N S O F R O MA H O U S E H O L D S I N S LO VA K I A 2010

Graph 11.7 The presence of a work income in households by occurrence of the situation “didn’t have anything to feed their children” – for individual types of Roma settlements and in comparison with households from the geographically close general population (in %) 0

10

20

30

40

50

21.2

Segregated

60

70

no, never

29.2 6.2

yes, one time 23.1

Separated 13.7

yes, more than one time

17.4 34.5

Diffused

42.9

14.3

Roma households total

27.0 27.9

11.0

51.4

Geographically close general households

58.3 55.0

Question: Have you ever got into a situation when you really didn’t have anything to feed your children? (The “head of the household” responded to the question.)

Note: Calculated for the relevant households (i. e. households with a child). The graph shows the percentages of households which gave some work income for the previous month.

ing diffused 0.6 members). Although the average number of working members for the geographically close general households was significantly higher, namely for all three groups by the experience of lack of food for children, the rule of a drop in the number of working members in connection with a growth in the occurrence of the situation characterised by the absence of food for children also applied here, too: the average number of

working members shifted from 0.9 in those households with a lack of food for children to 1.1 for households without such an experience.

Graph 11.7, which presents the share of households with a working member for individual groups, also shows the association between the provision of food for children and work activity. The occurrence of work incomes was significantly lower for those households which

Graph 11.8 The amount of work income in households by occurrence of the situation “didn’t have anything to feed their children” – for individual types of Roma settlements and in comparison with households from the geographically close general population (in EUR) 0

100

200

300

100 104

Segregated

500

600

no, never

22 Separated

400

yes, one time 54

99

153

yes, more than one time 214

Diffused

Roma households total Geographically close general households

276

48

40

161 142 480 530 406

Question: Have you ever got into a situation when you really didn’t have anything to feed your children? (The “head of the household” responded to the question.)

Note: Calculated for the relevant households (i. e. households with a child). The graph shows the average work income for the previous month in EUR

203

R E P O R T O N T H E L I V I N G CO N D I T I O N S O F R O MA H O U S E H O L D S I N S LO VA K I A 2010

Graph 11.9 Roma households by the occurrence of the situation “didn’t have any way to cook or warm up food” (in %)

did not have food for children to eat had some work income in the previous month, among households with only occasional or no experience at all with this deprivation, the figure was 27%.

And finally by the experience with the situation of deprivation “didn’t have anything to feed their children” the amount of work income was also differentiated. Roma households which had this experience repeatedly had on average a work income of EUR 40, and households where they knew this situation only one time or not at all had an average work income 3-4-times higher: EUR 142 and EUR 161. Such an income, however, still lagged well behind that of the geographically close general households, where average work incomes were still approximately three-times higher (around EUR 500).

The study data shows that Roma households which repeatedly got into a situation of not having anything to feed children belong among the category of households which do not have any work income or only a very low one. This strengthens their linkage to social benefits – if the benefits are not set to a sufficient amount, the risk of children going hungry in these households increases. This points out two principle facts in relation to public policy: a) it is primarily necessary to look for work-related remedies; b) if the state is not capable of providing this, then social benefits must be set at a level which doesn’t mean the danger of children going hungry.

7.0

33.7 59.3

yes, one time

yes, more than one time

no, never

Question: Have you ever got into a situation when you really didn’t have any way to cook or warm up food? (The “head of the household” responded to the question.)

met repeatedly with the problem of providing sufficient food for children than with those where they didn’t have experience with this at all or only occasionally. While only 11% of the group of Roma households which repeatedly

Table 11.2 Roma households by the occurrence of the situation “didn’t have any way to cook or warm up food” and type of housing (in %) Segregated

Separated

Yes, once Yes, more than one time No, never Households total

9.8 39.1 51.1 100.0

Diffused 8.7 35.5 55.8 100.0

Total 2.6 26.5 70.9 100.0

7.0 33.7 59.3 100.0

Question: Have you ever got into a situation when you really didn’t have any way to cook or warm up food? (The “head of the household” responded to the question.)

Graph 11.10 Roma households by the occurrence of the situation “didn’t have any way to cook or warm up food” – comparison with households from the geographically close general population (in %) 0 yes, one time yes, more than one time

10

20

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

7.0 3.3 33.7 5.1 59.3

no, never

91.5 Roma households total

204

30

Geographically close general households

Question: Have you ever got into a situation when you really didn’t have any way to cook or warm up food? (The “head of the household” responded to the question.)

R E P O R T O N T H E L I V I N G CO N D I T I O N S O F R O MA H O U S E H O L D S I N S LO VA K I A 2010

Graph 11.11 Average total net monthly income of households by the occurrence of the situation “didn’t have any way to cook or warm up food” – for individual types of Roma households and in comparison with households from the geographically close general population (in EUR) 0

100

200

300

Segregated

400 368 395

Separated

500

394

700

464

800

900

1000

no, never yes, one time 507 543

375

Diffused

600

yes, more than one time

524

445

502 Roma households total

387

441 902

Geographically close general households

856

661

Question: Have you ever got into a situation when you really didn’t have any way to cook or warm up food? (The “head of the household” responded to the question.)

Note: Income was surveyed for the month which preceded the month of data collection

Very similar associations as in the case of lack of food for children, only with a moderately lower occurrence (overall and repeated), also apply with the remaining two indicators of extreme deprivation – when households have no way to cook or to warm up food and when they don’t have heating in their flat or home. A total of 40.7% of the surveyed Roma households had experienced the situation “didn’t have any way to cook or warm up food”, and 33.7% of these had experienced it repeatedly.

Limited possibilities for cooking and warming up food were found in a higher measure for the subset of Roma households living segregated (48.9%), and with a reduction in spatial integration its occurrence gradually decreased – to 44.3% in separated and 29.1% for households living diffused. Additionally: approximately half of households living segregated (51.1%) had never gotten into a situation in which they had no way to cook or warm up food, while for separated households

Graph 11.12 Average income per household member by the occurrence of the situation “didn’t have any way to cook or warm up food” – for individual types of Roma households and in comparison with households from the geographically close general population (in EUR) 0

50

100

150 116 133

Segregated 92

90 Diffused

102

98

250

300

350

400

no, never yes, one time

141

Separated

200

yes, more than one time

147 115 136

Roma households total Geographically close general households

97

117 350 262

303

Question: Have you ever got into a situation when you really didn’t have any way to cook or warm up food? (The “head of the household” responded to the question.)

Note: Income was surveyed for the month which preceded the month of data collection.

205

R E P O R T O N T H E L I V I N G CO N D I T I O N S O F R O MA H O U S E H O L D S I N S LO VA K I A 2010

Graph 11.13 Presence of a work income in households by the occurrence of the situation “didn’t have any way to cook or warm up food” – for individual types of Roma households and in comparison with households from the geographically close general population (in %) 0

10

20

30

40

17.5

Segregated

50

60

no, never

30.4 5.4

yes, one time 19.4

yes, more than one time

25.0

Separated

13.4 28.3

Diffused

16.7 14.5 22.4 26.5

Roma households total

10.6 51.5

Geographically close general households

54.5 52.9

Question: Have you ever got into a situation when you really didn’t have any way to cook or warm up food? (The “head of the household” responded to the question.)

Note: The graph shows the percentage of households which gave some work income for the previous month.

this was about 5% more (55.8%) and for diffused households about 20% more (70.9%).

A significant difference appears with this indicator of extreme deprivation in comparison with geographically close general households. Compared to the mentioned 40.7% of deprived Roma households (one time or repeatedly), in general households this was only 8.4%; more than one-third of Roma households repeatedly ex-

perienced problems with cooking or warming food, while in nearby general households this was only 5.1%.

Deprivation in the form of the absence of ways to cook or warm food also corresponded with the level of income – both overall for households and in calculations per household member. Roma households which repeatedly experienced the situation “didn’t have any way to cook or warm up food” had a total income of EUR 387, and for

Graf 11.14 The amount of work income in households per member by occurence of the situation „didn‘t have any way to cook or warm up food“ – for individual types of Roma households and in comparison with households from the geographically close general population (in EUR)0 0

50

100 77

Segregated

150

200

300

350

400

450

500

no, never

109

20

yes, one time 119

Separated

250

144

yes, more than one time

48 165

Diffused

Roma households total Geographically close general households

206

17

63

41

125 112

412

462 469

Question: Have you ever got into a situation when you really didn’t have any way to cook or warm up food? (The “head of the household” responded to the question.)

Note: Income was surveyed for the month which preceded the month of data collection.

R E P O R T O N T H E L I V I N G CO N D I T I O N S O F R O MA H O U S E H O L D S I N S LO VA K I A 2010

Graph 11.15 Roma households by the occurrence of the situation “didn’t have heat in the flat or house” (in %)

the subset of those households which had never met such a situation even one time, the total income surpassed EUR 500. The calculation of income per household member indicates this in even greater relief. While for the group repeatedly deprived of access to warm food the average income per member was EUR 97, for households experiencing this situation only one time this was EUR 117 and for Roma households without this experience it was EUR 136. An income below EUR 100 per household member repeatedly showed to be potentially threatening.

The link between the occurrence of this situation of deprivation with the work activity of household members was also repeated. While among Roma households which repeatedly knew the situation of not having a way to cook or warm up food (Graph 11.13), only not quite 11% declared the existence of some work income in the family, while in Roma households without such experience at all or with it only rarely this occurrence was around one-quarter (22.4% and 26.5%).

Likewise, the amount of work income in Roma households repeatedly deprived of the possibility to cook or warm up food was significantly lower than for households without such deprivation, or with its random occurrence. The difference moved on the level of three-times higher: on average EUR 41 of total work income for Roma households repeatedly without access to warm food to EUR 125 for those households who do not know this situation at all (Graph 11.14).

7.4

34.5 58.0

yes, one time

yes, more than one time

no, never

Question: Have you ever got into a situation when you really didn’t have any heat in your flat or house? (The “head of the household” responded to the question.)

Nearly identical occurrence and associations as with the indicator capturing the possibilities for cooking and warming up food were found with the monitoring of the situation when a household “didn’t have heat in the flat or house”. This is with great probability caused by the fact that a large portion of Roma households of-

Table 11.3 Roma households by occurrence of the situation “didn’t have heat in the flat or house” and type of settlement (in %) Segregated Yes, once Yes, more than once No, never Households total

Separated 10.3 42.9 46.8 100.0

Diffused 9.9 31.0 59.1 100.0

Total 2.1 29.6 68.2 100.0

7.4 34.5 58.0 100.0

Question: Have you ever got into a situation when you really didn’t have any heat in your flat or house? (The “head of the household” responded to the question).

Graph 11.16 Roma households by occurrence of the situation “didn’t have heat in the flat or house” – comparison with the geographically close general population (in %) 0 yes, one time yes, more than one time

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

7.4 3.6 34.5 5.8 58.0

no, never

90.6 Roma households total

Geographically close general households

Question: Have you ever got into a situation when you really didn’t have any heat in your flat or house? (The “head of the household” responded to the question.)

207

R E P O R T O N T H E L I V I N G CO N D I T I O N S O F R O MA H O U S E H O L D S I N S LO VA K I A 2010

Graph 11.17 Average total net monthly household income by occurrence of the situation “didn’t have heat in the flat or house” – for individual types of Roma settlements and in comparison with the geographically close general population (in EUR) 0

100

200

300

400

Segregated

500

600

700

475

361 388

1000

yes, one time yes, more than one time

421 384 501

0

Diffused

900

no, never

480

Separated

800

462

Roma households total

409

487 469

Geographically close general households

903 877

665

Question: Have you ever got into a situation when you really didn’t have any heat in your flat or house? (The “head of the household” responded to the question.)

Note: Income was surveyed for the month which preceded the month of data collection. The value “0” in the case of Roma households living diffused and with the occasional occurrence of the situation of deprivation means that this household did not occur in the surveyed set.

ten use one and the same source for both cooking and heating (see Chapter 6). According to the responses obtained, 41.9% of Roma households were without heat in their dwelling at least one time and 7.4% of those were only once and 34.5% was more than once.

And the occurrence of this situation of deprivation was differentiated by spatial exclusion on the basis of

settlement type (Table 11.3). For those Roma households which lived in segregated settlements the total share of household without sufficient heat in their dwelling was more than half (up to 53.2%); in contrast, among households living in separated settlements this was 40.9% and for Roma households living diffused it was less than one-third (31.7%).

Graph 11.18 Average income per household member by occurrence of the situation “didn’t have heat in the flat or house” – for individual types of Roma settlements and in comparison with the geographically close general population (in EUR) 0

50

100

118 132

Segregated 90 Separated

Diffused

Roma households total Geographically close general households

208

150

200

250

300

350

400

no, never yes, one time

95

128 112

yes, more than one time 145

0

124

102

132 133 352 264 271

Question: Have you ever got into a situation when you really didn’t have any heat in your flat or house? (The “head of the household” responded to the question.)

Note: Income was surveyed for the month which preceded the month of data collection. The value “0” in the case of Roma households living diffused and with the occasional occurrence of the situation of deprivation means that this household did not occur in the surveyed set.

R E P O R T O N T H E L I V I N G CO N D I T I O N S O F R O MA H O U S E H O L D S I N S LO VA K I A 2010

Graph 11.19 Presence of a work income in households by occurrence of the situation “didn’t have heat in the flat or house” – for individual types of Roma settlements and in comparison with the geographically close general population (in %) 0

10

20

30

40

19.3 Segregated

29.2 5.0

Diffused

60

no, never yes, one time

18.2 Separated

50

30.4

12.5

yes, more than one time

28.3

0

15.9 22.5

Roma households total

26.9 10.4

Geographically close general households

52.0 41.7

52.6

Question: Have you ever got into a situation when you really didn’t have any heat in your flat or house? (The “head of the household” responded to the question.)

Note: The graph shows the percentage of households which gave some work income for the preceding month.

Even this indicator of extreme deprivation did not deviate from the result of a comparison of Roma and general households. The level of problems of Roma households with heat in their dwelling differed significantly from the frequency obtained for geographically close general households. Together not quite onetenth (9.4%) of general households declared a lack of heat in the flat, while this was up to four-times higher for Roma households (the mentioned 40.9%).

And in the end, the link of the occurrence of this situation of deprivation with the amount of household income and with the level of work activity of its members was also confirmed. In relation to income, the total household income (Graph 11.17), as well as its calculation per household member (Graph 11.18) came out on average well lower for the subset of those households which had experience with repeated lack of heat in their dwelling.

The total income of Roma households with a recurring deficit of heat in the flat or home on average move closely above the EUR 400 level (for segregated and separated households by still EUR 20 lower); in the case of Roma households without the experience with this lack of heat the total income neared EUR 500. This is similar as in the calculation for one member: the income of Roma households facing a lack of heat in their dwelling multiple times reached EUR 102 (in separated and segregated this was still less – EUR 95 and EUR 90), the average for the group without such deprivation or only occasionally deprived Roma households surpassed EUR 130.

The monitored interconnections with work incomes repeats the findings for the previous two indicators: households experiencing a lack of heat in their dwelling have a smaller share of work incomes and also signifi-

cantly lower work incomes than non-deprived groups of households. While 10.4% of Roma households which repeatedly declared a lack of heat in their flat acknowledged some work income in their family, with non-deprived households the share with some income was 22.5%. And again in the direction of separated and segregated environments the difference was accentuated – among segregated households with repeated lack of heat in their dwelling only 5% had some work income.

The amount of work income for individual groups of Roma households was itself very differentiated according to the measure of deprivation. While average work incomes for the group of households with repeated occurrence of a lack of heat in the dwelling achieved EUR 39, for households without such an experience, or with it only occasionally, this was EUR 125, thus, a work income three-times higher (Graph 11.20). At the same time the share of households with an existing work income as well as the sum of that work income was determined for the geographically close general households and was incomparably higher – approximately five-times higher in the case of the share of households with a work income and nearly ten-times higher in terms of the amount of work income than in households repeatedly experiencing a lack of heat in their dwelling (EUR 39 versus EUR 398).

At the conclusion let’s still look at the occurrence of all three indicators of extreme deprivation simultaneously.

Even from this perspective it was shown that Roma households are stricken significantly more strongly by shortage situations, particularly the segregated and separated parts of them (Graph 11.21). The share of households which repeatedly experienced all three monitored situations, that is, which had multiple times

209

R E P O R T O N T H E L I V I N G CO N D I T I O N S O F R O MA H O U S E H O L D S I N S LO VA K I A 2010

Graph 11.20 Amount of work income in households by occurrence of the situation “didn’t have heat in the flat or house” – for individual types of Roma settlements and in comparison with the geographically close general population (in EUR) 0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

87

Segregated

166

0

Roma households total

yes, more than one time

173

49

Diffused

500

yes, one time 107

Separated

450

no, never

104

15

400

64 125 125

39

466

Geographically close general households

384 398

Question: Have you ever got into a situation when you really didn’t have any heat in your flat or house? (The “head of the household” responded to the question.)

Note: The graph shows the average work income for the previous month in EUR. The value “0” in the case of Roma households living diffused and with the occasional occurrence of the situation of deprivation means that this household did not occur in the surveyed set.

nothing to feed their children, no way to cook or warm up food and no heating in their dwelling, reached 38.2% for the group of segregated households, 26.5% for separated households and 20.6% for diffused households.

The average for all Roma households was 28.6%, and for the geographically close general households only 4.5% experienced this triple deprivation. On the other hand, 88.6% of general households had not met even once with any of the three monitored situations, and for Roma households this was less than two-fifths (38.5%). While geographically close general households were from

the viewpoint of extreme deprivation relatively homogeneous – they experienced it only marginally – Roma households were divided into approximately three equal groups. One part didn’t know even one of the shortage situations (38.5%), a second part met repeatedly with all three shortage situations (28.6%) and the third part (32.9%) moved somewhere in between – they either experienced one or two of the monitored situations repeatedly or even all three, but only one time. The share repeatedly deprived for all three monitored situations relatively increased with spatial separation and segregation.

Graph 11.21 Roma households by occurrence of all three deprived situations – for individual types of Roma settlements and in comparison with the geographically close general population (in %) 0

10

20

Segregated

34.5

Separated

35.3

Diffused Roma households total

30

40

50

60

70

80

38.2 38.2

45.9

Geographically close general households

100

27.3

26.5 20.6

38.5

90

28.6 34.5

Didn’t experience even one of the situations

33.5 32.9 4.5 6.9

experienced all three repeatedly

at least one of them one time

210

Question: Have you ever got into a situation when you really didn’t have: “anything to feed your children”, “any way to cook or warm up food” and “any heat in your flat or house”? (The “head of the household” responded to the question.)

R E P O R T O N T H E L I V I N G CO N D I T I O N S O F R O MA H O U S E H O L D S I N S LO VA K I A 2010

If we should sum up for all three monitored indicators of extreme deprivation, it is necessary to point out several facts. First, the occurrence of all three monitored deprivation situations was for Roma households disproportionately higher in comparison with geographically close general households. It is also true that if a deprivation situation has already occurred in a household, usually it has a tendency to be repeated – recurrence was primarily higher than the one-time occurrence. It was also clearly shown that experiences of Roma households with extreme deprivation grow with their spatial exclusion, and the most obvious difference was found particularly among Roma households living diffused and the groups living segregated and separated ; the relative positions of segregated and separated households was not very far apart. A very close connection between the amount of household incomes and work activity of household members with all three indicators of extreme deprivation was confirmed. Deprived households had significantly lower total incomes, work incomes and the measure of work activities of their members.

Graph 11.22 Roma households by satisfaction with the financial situation of the household (in %) 0.3

9.8

26,8 63.1

Completely satisfied Rather satisfied

Rather dissatisfied Completely dissatisfied

Question: How satisfied are you with the current financial situation of your household?

(The “head of the household” responded to the question.)

11.2. Satisfaction with present financial situation and evaluation of changes to it over time An integral part of the study was questions on the subjective evaluation of the current financial situation of households as well as its comparison with the past and expectations for future development. This type of question is a standard feature of surveys focused on the living conditions of households. As the preceding section devoted to selected situations of extreme deprivation showed, their close link with the household income situation is expressed – households repeatedly running into shortages in covering the most basic of life needs signalled a lower level of total and work incomes. At the same time deprivation and the amount of income are deepened with segregation.

In context with deprivation and its interconnection to income, therefore, the relatively low satisfaction with the current financial situation of their households is not surprising. Only one-tenth (10.1%) of surveyed Roma

households expressed satisfaction, and from this only a negligible part (0.3%) was fully satisfied. More than onequarter or Roma households (26.8%) leaned toward the response “rather dissatisfied” and the majority (a total of 63.1%) declared complete dissatisfaction.

Despite the overall high dissatisfaction with the current financial situation in their household, its level is still further differentiated by spatial exclusion on the basis of settlement type (Table 11.4). The most dissatisfied households were among residents of segregated settlements – up to 70.6% completely dissatisfied, in the case of Roma households living in separated or diffused settlements this was less than 60% (59.9% from separated and 58.9% from diffused).Directly proportional to this, at least partial satisfaction was expressed by not quite 7% of segregated households, but more than 10% of separated and more than 13% of those living diffused.

The level of satisfaction of households representing the geographically close general population differed sig-

Table 11.4 Roma households by satisfaction with the financial situation of the household and type of settlement (in %) Segregated completely satisfied rather satisfied rather unsatisfied completely unsatisfied Households total

Separated — 6.8 22.6 70.6 100.0

Diffused 0.4 9.9 29.8 59.9 100.0

Total 0.4 12.7 28.0 58.9 100.0

0.3 9.8 26.8 63.1 100.0

Question: How satisfied are you with the current financial situation of your household? (The “head of the household” responded to the question).

211

R E P O R T O N T H E L I V I N G CO N D I T I O N S O F R O MA H O U S E H O L D S I N S LO VA K I A 2010

Graph 11.23 Roma households by satisfaction with the financial situation of the household – comparison with households from the geographically close general population (in %) 0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

0.3

Completely satisfied

4.5 9.8

Rather satisfied

43.0 26.8

Rather dissatisfied

40.4 63.1

Completely dissatisfied

12.1 Roma households total

Geographically close general households

Question: How satisfied are you with the current financial situation of your household? (The “head of the household” responded to the question.)

Graph 11.24 Roma households by satisfaction with the financial situation – comparison with the year 2005 (in %) 0 Completely satisfied Rather satisfied

10

20

30

1.3 0.3

40

50

60

70 2005 2010

6.7 9.8

Rather dissatisfied Completely dissatisfied

26.2 26.8 65.8 63.1

Question: How satisfied are you with the current financial situation of your household? (The “head of the household” responded to the question.)

212

nificantly from this picture. There was significantly more satisfied households (47.5% completely and partially satisfied versus 10.1% of all Roma households) and partially dissatisfied (40.4% versus 26.8% of Roma households) among them; and on the other hand again disproportionally fewer completely dissatisfied (12.1% versus 63.1% for Roma households).

Interesting results emerged from a mutual comparison with evaluation of the situation five years ago.

In the case of Roma households the evaluation of the financial situation in 2010 upon comparison with 2005 showed almost no change at all (Graph 11.24).

Only a minimal change was shown – a shift from complete dissatisfaction to rather satisfied. The share of completely dissatisfied Roma households decreased from 66.9% to 63.1% and representation or rather satisfied grew from 6.7% to 9.8%.

In contrast, upon comparisons of the evaluation of current financial situation of the geographically close general households between years showed a principle change (Graph 11.25). The share of completely dissatisfied households dropped by about two-thirds (from 38.9% in 2005

to 12.1% in 2010); on the other hand, the representation of households satisfied (completely, but particularly partially satisfied) with their own financial situation (a total growth of 47.5%) grew. It can be assumed that such a large difference cannot be caused only by the selection. Overall, evaluations of general households in 2010 were concentrated in the middle variants of responses (up to 83.4% rather satisfied and rather dissatisfied), while with Roma households negative evaluations predominated significantly (up to 89.9% rather and completely dissatisfied).

Satisfaction with the financial situation associates significantly with total household income. As Graph 11.26 shows, for all groups defined on the basis of settlement type, it is true that households which expressed satisfaction with the present financial situation (completely or partially), gave a significantly higher income than dissatisfied households. And this guideline characterises not only Roma but also general households. The average total net monthly income for Roma households which were completely dissatisfied with their financial situation ended up as EUR 392, in the case of rather dissatisfied it rose to EUR 492 (thus EUR 100 more) and with completely or partially satisfied

R E P O R T O N T H E L I V I N G CO N D I T I O N S O F R O MA H O U S E H O L D S I N S LO VA K I A 2010

Graph 11.25 Geographically close general households by satisfaction with the financial situation – comparison with the year 2005 (in %) 0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

1.4

Completely satisfied

4.5

2005 16.1

Rather satisfied

2010

43.0 43.6 40.4

Rather dissatisfied

38.9

Completely dissatisfied

12.1

Question: How satisfied are you with the current financial situation of your household? (The “head of the household” responded to the question.)

it reached EUR 785, which is two-times higher than those dissatisfied. Similarly as with the growth of the positive evaluation, the average income also increased for the geographically close general households: from EUR 542 with completely dissatisfied, through EUR 918 with rather dissatisfied, up to EUR 1,000 for the group of those satisfied with their own current financial situation.

With a comparison of Roma households with those of the geographically close general population again significant differences appeared in average incomes for individual levels of satisfaction. In the end for Roma households satisfied their financial situation a significantly lower average income emerged than for rather dissatisfied general households (EUR 785 to EUR 918) and the sum of incomes for the completely dissatisfied among the general households was higher than for Roma

households that expressed partial dissatisfaction (EUR 542 to EUR 492). Results indicate that it’s as if Roma households were less demanding for income – they expressed satisfaction with markedly lower incomes. A similar rule for declare satisfaction with one’s financial situation with significantly lower incomes also applies internally in Roma households by degree of exclusion on the basis of settlement type – those living segregated appeared to be the most modest. While for the group of those satisfied with their financial situation living segregated achieved an average income of EUR 619, with separated this was EUR 758 and for those living diffused up to EUR 899 (EUR 280 more than in segregated). Only average income for the completely dissatisfied didn’t differ much; for the individual subgroups of Roma households moved on a level around EUR 400 and less.

Graph 11.26 Average total net monthly household income by satisfaction with the financial situation – for individual types of Roma households and in comparison with households from the geographically close general population (in EUR) 0

200

400

800

1000

1200

619

Segregated 405 Separated

600 463

758 379

497 899

Diffused

391

511 785

Roma households total

392

492 1,000

Geographically close general households

542 Satisfied (completely + rather)

rather unsatisfied

918 completely unsatisfied

Question: How satisfied are you with the current financial situation of your household? (The “head of the household” responded to the question.)

Note: Income was surveyed for the month which preceded the month of data collection.

213

R E P O R T O N T H E L I V I N G CO N D I T I O N S O F R O MA H O U S E H O L D S I N S LO VA K I A 2010

Graph 11.27 Average income per household member by satisfaction with the financial situation – for individual types of Roma households and in comparison with households from the geographically close general population (in EUR) 0

50

100

200

250

300

350

400

450

176

Segregated 95 Separated

150

87

129 233

139

291 Diffused

152

98

245 Roma households total

93

141 392

Geographically close general households

200 Satisfied (completely + rather)

rather unsatisfied

337 completely unsatisfied

Question: How satisfied are you with the current financial situation of your household? (The “head of the household” responded to the question.)

Note: Income was surveyed for the month which preceded the month of data collection.

214

The same dividing line appeared also with income calculated for one member of a household (Graph 11.27): for all levels of satisfaction with the financial situation a significantly lower income per household member emerged in the case of Roma households than with geographically close general households, and Roma households were also differentiated by type of settlement, with the exception of complete dissatisfaction, where income per household member was relatively balanced for all three groups and also very low – less than EUR 100. With completely dissatisfied Roma households the average income per member came out at EUR 93, but with the geographically close general population this was EUR 200; the average for Roma households satisfied with the financial situation represented per one member EUR 245, for the general population up to EUR 392, thus about EUR 150 more. Among Roma households living segregated, those households with an average income of EUR 176 per one member expressed satisfaction with the financial situation of the household, while with separated this was EUR 233 per household member and in the case of Roma households living diffused EUR 291 per member. Roma households thus expressed satisfaction with a significantly lower average income per household member in comparison with the general population, similarly also households living in segregated settlements in comparison with other types of settlements.

Whether this is a consequence of the lower expenditures for life or the more modest needs of households, possibly still other reasons; for this the quantitative study carried out is unable to offer any answer.

An important question in relation to the evaluation of financial situation is which are satisfied and which are dissatisfied households, for example, for the viewpoint of their size, number of children but also work activities.

In relation to the number of members of a household (Graph 11.28), for all Roma households and for the geographically close general households a connection was shown with the evaluation of the current financial system. Households satisfied with their own financial relations had on average a fewer number of members than those who expressed dissatisfaction. While for Roma households satisfied with the existing financial situation the average size of the household came out to be 4.5 members, households completely dissatisfied had on average 5.2 members; in the case of general households the average members for satisfied was 2.8 and for completely dissatisfied 3.2. The gradual growth in the number of members with a decline in satisfaction and the opposite, however, did not apply for the group of segregated Roma households. With them the average number of members was the same with the satisfied as well as with those dissatisfied with their financial situation– it reached 5.5 members. In total, however, the majority of households with a higher number of members expressed more dissatisfaction with their financial situation.

Upon tracking the number of children in a household the situation was similar (Graph 11.29). While for Roma households satisfied with their financial situation has on average 1.6 children, with partially dissatisfied this rose to 1.9 children and in the case of completely dissatisfied to 2.4 children; in the general population the average number of children in the case of satisfied with the fi-

R E P O R T O N T H E L I V I N G CO N D I T I O N S O F R O MA H O U S E H O L D S I N S LO VA K I A 2010

Graph 11.28 Average number of household members by satisfaction with the financial situation – for individual types of Roma households and in comparison with households from the geographically close general population (in persons) 0

1

2

3

4

5

Segregated

6 5.5

4.8

4.6

Separated 3.8

5.5

4.8 5.5

4.6 4.8

Diffused

4.5 Roma households total

4.7 5.2

2.8

Geographically close general households

3.0 3.2 Satisfied (completely + rather)

rather unsatisfied

completely unsatisfied

Question: How satisfied are you with the current financial situation of your household? (The “head of the household” responded to the question.)

nancial situation was 0.6 children and in the case of completely dissatisfied 0.9 children. Less satisfaction with the current financial situation then appeared for those households which had on average more children.

Analysis of different indicators of the work activity of households clearly confirmed their linkage with the evaluation of the financial situation, whether this was the number of working members, the existence of some work

income in the households, the amount of work income, but also the “experience” of household members with work abroad. As Graph 11.30 presents, according to the data obtained the average number of those working came out significantly higher for households which inclined toward a positive evaluation of their own financial situations. For the whole of Roma households this was 1.1 working members in the case of satisfied with the fi-

Graph 11.29 Average number of children in households by satisfaction with the financial situation – for individual types of Roma households and in comparison with households from the geographically close general population (in persons) 0

0.5

1

1.5

2

Segregated

2.0 1.8

Separated 1.1

1.9

3

2.3 2.7

2.4

1.9

Diffused

2.0 1.6

Roma households total Geographically close general households

2.5

1.9 2.4

0.4

0.6 0.9

Satisfied (completely + rather)

rather unsatisfied

completely unsatisfied

Question: How satisfied are you with the current financial situation of your household? (The “head of the household” responded to the question.)

Note: The graph shows the average number of so-called dependent children, insofar as they are preparing for a profession and form the basis of their parents’ claim for a child allowance.

215

R E P O R T O N T H E L I V I N G CO N D I T I O N S O F R O MA H O U S E H O L D S I N S LO VA K I A 2010

Graph 11.30 Average number of working members in a household by satisfaction with the financial situation – for individual types of Roma households and in comparison with households from the geographically close general population (in persons) 0 Segregated

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1

1.2

1.4

1.6

0.7

0.2 0.2

0.8

Separated

0.4

0.2

1.4

Diffused

0.3

0.2

1.1 Roma households total

0.3

0.2

1.2

Geographically close general households

1.1

0.5 Satisfied (completely + rather)

rather unsatisfied

completely unsatisfied

Question: How satisfied are you with the current financial situation of your household? (The “head of the household” responded to the question.)

nancial situation to 0.2 working for the group completely dissatisfied. Geographically close general households satisfied with their financial situation had on average 1.2 working members, for completely dissatisfied this was 0.5 working members. A glimpse into the interior of Roma households uncovered one more trend: the subgroup of those satisfied with their financial situation had nearly twice as high the number of household members working for those living diffused than for the other two groups

by type of settlement. The average of working members with those declaring satisfaction with their finances was 1.4 for diffused and only 0.7 for segregated. At the same time the completely dissatisfied did not show any difference – dissatisfied households for all three groups had on average only 0.2 working members.

In relation to the presence of a work income in a household, this also differentiated the evaluations of financial relations (Graph 11.31). It was shown that in sat-

Graph 11.31 Presence of work income in households by satisfaction with the financial situation – for individual types of Roma households and in comparison with households from the geographically close general population (in %) 0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

37.5

Segregated

15.1 10.8 52.0

Separated

19.4

10.3

71.0 Diffused

24.2

14.4

56.9 Roma households total

11.8

19.9 49.7

Geographically close general households

54.9 41.9 Satisfied (completely + rather)

216

rather unsatisfied

completely unsatisfied

Question: How satisfied are you with the current financial situation of your household? (The “head of the household” responded to the question.)

Note: The graph presents the percentage of households which gave some work income for the previous month.

R E P O R T O N T H E L I V I N G CO N D I T I O N S O F R O MA H O U S E H O L D S I N S LO VA K I A 2010

Graph 11.32 Amount of work income in households by satisfaction with the financial situation – for individual types of Roma households and in comparison with households from the geographically close general population (in EUR) 0 Segregated

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

214

54 43

362

Separated

107

40

611 Diffused

76 60

Roma households total

82

437 47

Geographically close general households

492 490

201 Satisfied (completely + rather)

rather unsatisfied

completely unsatisfied

Question: How satisfied are you with the current financial situation of your household? (The “head of the household” responded to the question.)

Note: The graph presents the average work income for the previous month in EUR.

isfied Roma households a work income was many times more common than in dissatisfied Roma households. On average for all Roma households the share of work incomes was nearly five-times higher for satisfied than with completely dissatisfied: 56.9% to 11.8%. But the share of households with some work income for Roma households satisfied with their financial situation differed between

individual subgroups defined by type of settlement. In satisfied segregated households the share of those which listed at least some work income was only 37.5%; with separated this was already more than half (52%) and for those living diffused nearly three-quarters (71%). But this could also be caused by the overall small numbers of households satisfied with the income situation (see

Graph 11.33 Experience of household members with work abroad by satisfaction with the financial situation – for individual types of Roma households and in comparison with households from the geographically close general population (in %) 0

10

20

30

50

60

50.1

Segregated 28.5 Separated

40 33.9 36.0 38.8

19.3 42.0

Diffused

27.2

17.9

41.7 Roma households total Geographically close general households

33.5

22.2 20.1 18.8

Satisfied (completely + rather)

27.9 rather unsatisfied

completely unsatisfied

Question: Was/is/does someone from your household go abroad to work (regularly for a longer period)? (The “head of the household” responded to the question.)

Note: Shows the share of households from which at least one member was or does (regularly or for longer) go abroad for work.

217

R E P O R T O N T H E L I V I N G CO N D I T I O N S O F R O MA H O U S E H O L D S I N S LO VA K I A 2010

Graph 11.34 Roma households by development of financial situation over the past three years (in %) 0.3 6.1

19.9

33.6

40.1

Greatly improved Partially improved Remained the same

Partially worsened Greatly worsened

Question: Do you think that the financial situation in your household in the last three years...?

(The “head of the household” responded to the question.)

Table 11.4). The share of those with work incomes among households completely dissatisfied with their financial situation was approximately the same – and very low – for all three groups (just over 10%).

And again, not only the presence of a work income but also its amount was significantly interconnected with the level of satisfaction with the financial situation – with the dissatisfied households the sum was decreased in a quadratic way (Graph 11.32). While average work incomes for all satisfied Roma households were about EUR 437, with dissatisfied households this was significantly less than EUR 100 (EUR 82 for rather dissatisfied and only EUR 47 for completely dissatisfied). And while Roma households thus showed a huge difference between satisfied on one hand and with two groups of dissatisfied on the other, the geographically close general households had closer average work incomes for satisfied and rather dissatisfied (EUR 492 and EUR 490), and only the

income for the completely dissatisfied lagged behind – by nearly EUR 300 (on average EUR 201).

It was also shown that experience with some household member or members working abroad had an effect on the satisfaction with the financial situation (Graph 11.33). For satisfied Roma households this experience was broader (up to 41.7%), and in partially dissatisfied with financial relations this was 33.5% and with completely dissatisfied only 22.2%. It appears as if work abroad contributed to the better financial situation of Roma households. In general households such a direct correlation did not apply; probably due to the fact that they find it easier to work in Slovakia; however, the different makeup of the research set here could play a role (more pensioners and fewer commonly managed households).

Analysis of the satisfaction of Roma households with the current financial situation showed a high representation of dissatisfied, which deepens even further with segregation on the basis of settlement type and differs significantly from the geographically close general households. In comparison with the results from five years ago almost no change was recorded in Roma households, and with the general households a shift occurred toward partial satisfaction. Data also confirmed a link between satisfaction with financial relations of households with the amount of its income, since a significantly higher average income emerged for satisfied households than for unsatisfied ones – for total income and also calculated per household member. At the same time the level of income for dissatisfied households was almost equal for all three types of Roma households (under EUR 400 with overall income and less than EUR 90 calculated per household member), but differed from the general households, for which the sums came out higher on average (by EUR 150 with total income and by about EUR 100 with income per household member). Satisfaction of households with the financial situation varied by size – dissatisfied was linked with a higher number of household members and a higher number of children. A link with work incomes and with experience of household members working abroad was also confirmed. Work activity and a work income also brought satisfaction with the financial situation to households, and this applies equally for Roma as

Table 11.5 Roma households by development of financial situation over the past three years and type of settlement (in %) Segregated greatly improved partially improved remained the same partially worsened greatly worsened Households total

218

Separated — 5.5 20.7 35.0 38.8 100.0

Diffused 0.4 5.0 18.5 40.8 35.3 100.0

Total 0.4 7.7 20.4 44.7 26.8 100.0

0.3 6.1 19.9 40.1 33.6 100.0

Question: Do you think that the financial situation in your household in the last three years...? (The “head of the household” responded to the question).

R E P O R T O N T H E L I V I N G CO N D I T I O N S O F R O MA H O U S E H O L D S I N S LO VA K I A 2010

Graf 11.35 Roma households by development of financial situation over the past three years – comparison with households from the geographically close general population (in %) 0

10

20

30

40

50

60

0.3 0.6

Greatly improved

6.1

Partially improved

13.8 19.9

Remained the same

46.2 40.1

Partially worsened

32.4 33.6

Greatly worsened

7.0 Roma households total

Geographically close general households

Question: Do you think that the financial situation in your household in the last three years...? (The “head of the household” responded to the question.)

well as general families. But as Chapter 9 showed, there is significantly less work activity on the official labour market in Roma households.

A component of the set of questions surveying the financial situation of households was also a glimpse into the past – evaluation of the development of the economic situation of households in the course of the past three years. As Graph 11.34 indicates, the majority of responses inclined toward a negative evaluation. A total of 73.7% of Roma households declared a worsening, of this 40.1% partial and 33.6% large. According to the other 19.9% the financial situation remained the same, and only 6.4% of Roma households felt economic improvement – and this was predominately partial improvement.

According to the type of settlement (Table 11.5) households living in segregated settlements had seen

an increased measure a great worsening of their economic situation during the past three years (38.8%), while in separated settlements this was 35.3%, and for the group living diffused this was about 10% less (26.8%).

Households living diffused again inclined more often to a partial worsening. The share of not recording a change or stating an improvement in the economic situation was in all three subsets of Roma households approximately the same and was very low: 5.5% among segregated and 8.1% for those living diffused.

Compared with the geographically close general households the evaluation of Roma households ended up a great deal more negative. As Graph 11.35 shows, in general households the response “greatly worsened” was given significantly less frequently than in Roma households (7% to 33.6%) and the possible response “partial-

Graph 11.36 Roma households by development of financial situation over the past three years – comparison with year 2005 (in %) 0 Greatly improved Partially improved Remained the same Partially worsened Greatly worsened

10

20

30

40

1.3 0.3

50

60 2005 2010

5.4 6.1 13.8 19.9 26.5 40.1

53.0 33.6

Question: Do you think that the financial situation in your household in the last three years...? (The “head of the household” responded to the question.)

219

R E P O R T O N T H E L I V I N G CO N D I T I O N S O F R O MA H O U S E H O L D S I N S LO VA K I A 2010

Graph 11.37 Geographically close general households by development of financial situation over the past three years – comparison with year 2005 (in %) 0

10

20

30

40

50

1.4 0.6

Greatly improved

60 2005 2010

13.4 13.8

Partially improved

25.1

Remained the same

46.2 30.8 32.4

Partially worsened

29.3

Greatly worsened

7.0

Question: Do you think that the financial situation in your household in the last three years...? (The “head of the household” responded to the question.)

ly worsened” was also given less often (32.4% to 40.1%).

On the other hand in this group the equal evaluation of the situation predominated (46.2% versus 19.9%), and they declared partial improvements more often than Roma households did (13.8% versus 6.1%). Overall, as many as 73.7% of Roma households expressed a worsened economic situation in their household in comparison with the state in 2005, while from the general households this was 39.4%.

What both compared samples had in common was a shift toward a more positive evaluation of the develGraph 11.38 Roma households by expected development of the financial situation in the coming year (in %) 0 7.3 12.7

27.8

18.8

33.4

greatly improve partially improve remain the same

220

partially worsen greatly worsen doesn’t know

Question: Do you think that the financial situation in your household over the next 12 months will...?

(The “head of the household” responded to the question.)

opment of the financial situation in comparison with the results measured in 2005. During five years the worse evaluation dropped by approximately 20% in Roma households: a drop from 53% in 2005 to 33.6% in 2005 was recorded (Graph 11.36) At the expense of this difference the frequency of the response “partially worsened” increased (growth by nearly 14%) and the frequency of the possibility “remained the same” grew (by 6%).

The geographically close general households stated in 2010 in comparison with 2005 a great worsening of the situation in their household only about one-quarter as often (7% in 2010 versus 29.3% in 2005). On the other hand in 2010 significantly more were inclined toward the response that their economic situation remained the same: 46.2% in 2010, while five years ago this was 25.1%. The share of those with an improved financial situation as well as the feeling of a partial worsening remained nearly unchanged in the general (Graph 11.37).

From the compared data for the two stages of the study, it seems as if the period 2007 – 2010 was evaluated by Roma and general households more positively than the period 2002 – 2005, and this occurred despite the financial and economic crisis which accompanied the end of the first decade of the 21st century. Probably the slashing of social benefits which took place during the years 2003 to 2004, which changed in a principle way the economic situation of many households, above all those in material need, in which there is a high share of the Roma population, had a share in the significantly more negative evaluated development of the situation five years ago. In this context it would be necessary to thoroughly consider each change in the system and base them on detailed analysis of the potentially endangered groups, because they can mean a loss of acquired stability in functioning and economic security of these households.

R E P O R T O N T H E L I V I N G CO N D I T I O N S O F R O MA H O U S E H O L D S I N S LO VA K I A 2010

Table 11.6 Roma households by expected development of the financial situation in the coming year and type of settlement (in %) Segregated greatly improve partially improve remain the same partially worsen greatly worsen doesn’t know Households total

Separated — 5.8 20.0 35.0 26.3 12.9 100.0

Diffused

Total

— 8.2 27.9 30.7 16.0 17.2 100.0

— 7.9 35.6 34.3 14.2 7.9 100.0

— 7.3 27.8 33.4 18.8 12.7 100.0

Question: Do you think that the financial situation in your household over the next 12 months will...? (The “head of the household” responded to the question).

The last look at the economic situation of households presented expectations in relation to its development in the coming year (2011). The strongest expectation for the coming year was a partial worsening of the economic situation of the household (33.4%), behind which with an approximately 5-percent lag followed the assumption that the situation will not change – remains the same (27.8%).

The most negative expectations were recorded in households from segregated settlements, where 26.3% of those surveyed expected a great worsening of their financial situation; among separated households this was 16% and from those living diffused 14.2%. Households living diffused expressed not expecting any changes more strongly than the remaining two groups of Roma households: 35.6% of them anticipated the same situation in

the coming twelve months, while in segregated settlements this was only 20% (Table 11.6).

The expectations of households representing the geographically close general population ended up rather different (Graph 11.39). General households said significantly more that their situation in the coming year would not change. The share of responses “remain the same” achieved up to 47.5% for general households, for Roma this was 20% points less – only 27.8%. Roma households, unlike those from the general population, more often expected in the coming year a partial worsening and significantly more often a great worsening (18.8% to 2.5% responses “greatly worsen”). Let us recall that in the period of carrying out the study 2 the prepared slashing of the amount of social benefits or of the benefit in material need were spoken about in pub-

Graph 11.39 Roma households by expected development of the financial situation in the coming year – comparison with the households from the geographically close general population (in %) 0 greatly improve

10

20

50

0.8 7.3 9.4 27.8

remain the same

47.5 33.4

partially worsen

doesn’t know

40

0

partially improve

greatly worsen

30

29.7 18.8

2.5 12.7 10.0 Roma households total

Geographically close general households

Question: Do you think that the financial situation in your household over the next 12 months will...? (The “head of the household” responded to the question.)

2 Field collection of data took place from the end of November to the middle of December 2010.

221

R E P O R T O N T H E L I V I N G CO N D I T I O N S O F R O MA H O U S E H O L D S I N S LO VA K I A 2010

Graph 11.40 Roma households by expected development of the financial situation in the coming year – comparison with year 2005 (in %) 0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

0.4 0

greatly improve

8.6 7.3

partially improve

20.3

remain the same

27.8 27.8

partially worsen

33.4 16.3

greatly worsen

18.8

2005 26.6

doesn’t know

2010

12.7

Question: Do you think that the financial situation in your household over the next 12 months will...? (The “head of the household” responded to the question.)

lic discussions only on a theoretical level; the proposals did not have any specific form. Only a small number of households in both compared samples expected an improvement of their situation in the coming year: 7.3% of Roma and 10.2% of general.

Graph 11.40 presents the structure of the responses to this question in comparison with the year 2005. As is obvious at first glance, over five years a decrease appeared in Roma households primarily among those who were unable to assess their situation in the future.

While in 2005 the share of non-respondents was 26.6%, in 2010 it fell to 12.7%. In relation to the specific expec-

tations of developments, in contrast to the status obtained five years ago assumptions now shifted toward the worse scenario (the frequency of the responses “partially worsen” increased by 5% and “greatly worsen” by 2.5%), but more were also found expecting the same situation (27.8% of Roma households anticipated in 2010 the same situation in the coming period, while five years ago this was 20.3%). Expectations stating an improved situation in comparison with five years ago changed very little: 9% in year 2005 and 7.3% in 2010.

The recorded time change in expectations for the geographically close general population was not so strik-

Graph 11.41 Geographically close general households by expected development of the financial situation in the coming year – for years 2005 and 2010 (in %) 0 greatly improve

5

10

15

20

25

30

50

9.3 9.4 38.3 47.5 27.0

partially worsen

29.7

12.4 2.5

2005 13.0

222

45

0.8

remain the same

doesn’t know

40

0

partially improve

greatly worsen

35

10.0

2010

Question: Do you think that the financial situation in your household over the next 12 months will...? (The “head of the household” responded to the question.)

R E P O R T O N T H E L I V I N G CO N D I T I O N S O F R O MA H O U S E H O L D S I N S LO VA K I A 2010

ing. The share of optimistically minded to the future in this group didn’t change at all (just over 9%); those who did not expect any change in the coming year increased (their share rose from 38.3% to 47.5%) and those from the general population expecting a partial worsening moderately increased (from 27% to 29.7%). Where a more significant drop occurred was in the pessimistic views: probably also in connection with the publicly presented end of the economic crisis the frequency expecting a great worsening in their financial situation fell from 12.4% to 2.5%. Approximately one-tenth of the surveyed set of the general households did not respond to the question for both years of the study.

All three directions of evaluations – of the current financial situation, the development over the past years or the expectations for the future year – did not end up exceedingly positive for Roma households. Negative evaluations of the current situation dominated in them; in comparison with past years they did not sense in the majority an improvement or even expect very much improvement in the future.

Conclusions Data regarding both subjects which formed the contents of this final chapter devoted to the subjective opinions about the actual situations likewise indicated the bad living conditions of a broad group of Roma households who in many ways lag behind the situation of the geographically close general households and rapidly grows worse with spatial exclusion. With all of the monitored characteristics a very close connection was expressed with incomes which a household has available and with the work intensity of the household.

In relation to extreme deprivation in the form of the defined situation when a household really does not have food for children, more than half of the surveyed Roma households had experienced this in reality, and for an absolute majority it occurred repeatedly. In contrast to the result from geographically close general households, this type of deprivation occurred sometimes in one-tenth, and 7% experienced it repeatedly. According to the analysis carried out, it seems as if an income lower than EUR 100 per household member was threatening for the feeding of children. At the same time, households experiencing this situation repeatedly belonged predominately to the category of those who did not have any work income or only a very low income. These households were therefore strongly dependent on social benefits, and if such benefits are not adjusted to a sufficient amount, the danger increases that children will go hungry. In relation to public policies, the facts obtained urge at least two principle recommendations. Primarily, there is a need in the interest of eliminating poverty to promote accessi-

bility of the more quality involvement of members of deprived families in the official labour market; if the state is not capable of providing this, then social benefits must be set at a level which doesn’t mean an increased risk of children going hungry.

Large differences in the real and the estimated needed income appear with a comparison between the Roma and the geographically close general households, and do so in all three groups by experience with the situation of lack of food for children. Real income was for the general households on average two to three times higher, with estimated income deeded for normal survival the difference was in the given sums calculated per household member on the level of EUR 200 to EUR 300.

Specifically, Roma households without the experience of a lack of food for children estimated the needed income per member in the amount of EUR 236, and for the same general households this was EUR 520; on the other hand Roma households with repeated occurrence of the situation of not having enough food for children gave the needed income per member as EUR 178, and geographically close general households gave EUR 372. Demands of Roma households for income emerged from the study as significantly more modest than the demands of general households (they also evaluated the situation more positively even with lower incomes). Whether this is a consequence of the lower expenditures for life or the more modest needs of Roma households, possibly still other reasons; for this the quantitative study carried out is unable to offer any answer.

The same associations as with a shortage of food for children also appeared with the remaining two situations of deprivation, when a household has no way to warm up food or to heat the dwelling. The share of households which repeatedly experienced all three monitored situations was in the surveyed Roma households significantly higher than in the general households. It was nearly 30% (even up to 40% among residents of segregated settlements), and from the geographically close general households this was less than 5%. In contrast, households which had not experienced even once any of the extreme deprived situations formed on average 38% of Roma households and nearly 89% of the general households. While geographically close general households were from the viewpoint of extreme deprivation relatively homogeneous (they experienced it only marginally) Roma households were divided into approximately three equal groups. One part didn’t know any of the three monitored situations; a second part met repeatedly with all three shortage situations, and a third part moved somewhere in between.

With all three indicators of extreme deprivation, then, their occurrence was disproportionately higher in Roma households than in geographically close general households. It was also true that their recurrence in households

223

R E P O R T O N T H E L I V I N G CO N D I T I O N S O F R O MA H O U S E H O L D S I N S LO VA K I A 2010

was significantly higher than one-time occurrences. If a household got into a situation of deprivation, it usually it recurred habitually. Clearly growth in the experiences of Roma households with extreme deprivation was expressed together with spatial exclusion; the largest difference was between households living diffused on one hand and on the other the segregated and separated groups. Also, with all three indicators showed a close link with the amount of household incomes and with the work activity of its members. Deprived households had significantly lower total and work incomes as well as the measure of work activity of its members.

Analysis of the satisfaction of Roma households with their current financial situation uncovered a high share of dissatisfied – up to nine-tenths as opposed to half from the geographically close general households, and this increased further with spatial segregation. Subjective evaluation likewise had a close link with household income – total and per one member, with the existence of a work income and work intensity of the household, but also with the experience of household members with work abroad and with the size of the household and the number of children. In general – with Roma and with the geographically close general households – satisfaction

224

3 See The UN Convention on the Rights of the Child (OSN, 1989).

with the financial situation was brought to households by work activity followed by work income. But as Chapter 9 showed, work involvement on the primary labour market was significantly less among Roma communities.

With assessment of the development of the financial situation for the past three years a more favourable result was obtained in 2010 than in 2005, even despite the financial crisis, which peaked right at this time in Slovakia. Behind the more negative evaluation of the period 2002 to 2005 versus the period 2007 to 2010 with great probability was probably the slashing in social benefits which occurred at the start of 2004 and which in a principle way changed the financial situation of many households in deep poverty. In the context of the real amount of social incomes (with many groups of households ultimately calculated as under EUR 100 per member) it appears as essential to derive each proposed change in the system of benefits from a detailed analysis of the living situation of threatened groups and the potential impacts of such changes on the functioning and security of those households and their members. In the opposite case, changes could in the end consequence mean a violation of the basic rights of children, among which is the right to sufficient nourishment.3

Recommendations As is presented in the introductory sections, the conducted study consisted of broad modules devoted to different areas of the life of Roma households, and the formulated recommendations are divided into the same segments. But many of them are cross-sectional in their focus and could have an impact on several areas.

The recommendations are formulated on different levels of generality; some have the form of specific instruments or programmes, while others are of a more general character. The recommendations are not exhausting and pertain to those facts which are analysed on the basis of data from this survey. The goal is to provide the actors in the decision-making sphere and in the non-governmental sector incentive and feedback based on empirical findings.

Education It is necessary to increase the schooling of Roma children in preschool facilities, which represent a key resource for obtaining the basic competencies and skills essential for entry into primary school and the successful handling of it. Attendance at a preschool facility is an important part of preparation for compulsory school attendance in connection with several problems with which large groups of Roma children must compensate for in the first years, such as, for example, insufficient mastery of the official language of schooling.

A prerequisite of growth in the schooling of Roma children in preschool facilities is, aside from an adequate legislative framework, also the increasing of geographic and financial accessibility of nursery schools. Therefore, it is necessary to search for opportunities for expanding the capacity of the network of nursery schools in regions with increased growth of Roma citizens, including searching for financial resources. On the other hand, this also means opening discussions on the creation of mechanisms which would motivate Roma parents to use these services for education and child care. An important motivation could be the provision of these services free-of-charge, as is shown at present in the case of the demand for free education at nursery school the year prior to fulfilling compulsory school attendance. It is also necessary to discuss the possibilities of introducing compulsory preschool attendance.

An urgent task on the society-wide and regional level is commencing discussions about the reso-

lution of problems with the quantitative capacities of primary schools in the regions and locations where possible; in view of the high number of young people of prepubescent age, to assume in future additional growth in the needs for compulsory school attendance.

It is further necessary to devote great attention on the process of assigning pupils to special school and special classes of a different type with the aim of fully eliminating the unauthorised assigning of pupils with a light degree of mental disability (variant A) to schools of this type. Attention should concentrate on improving the process of diagnostics such that for each of the conditions of the methodology of diagnostic examination, the specific abilities of children and the environment in which they grew up are considered, including language competencies.

In the process of diagnostics it is necessary to consider the condition of the presence of a person capable of communicating with the child in his or her own mother tongue. At the same time it is necessary to also consider the unintended effects emerging from the current structure of the system and modify it such that it cannot motivate representatives of schools or parents regarding the assigning of children to a special school.

It is desirable to support activities for improving the results of Roma children in education, including the elimination of possible language disadvantages, which also means increasing the number of Roma teacher assistants, support for programmes orientated on improving cooperation with parents, support for day-long learning (for example, afternoon care at school and the like), including the creation of a financial mechanism for their long-term sustainability.

For the principle lowering of the number of children who prematurely leave the educational system, the verification and introduction of instruments which can overcome this phenomenon appears to be essential. In connection to this and also with regard to the high unemployment among Roma youth, it is necessary to consider extending the compulsory age of school attendance to 18 years.

A prerequisite for improving the school results of Roma children from marginalised environments is a strict monitoring of desegregation policies with the assigning of children to primary schools, which is interconnected with the policies in the area of housing, which should effectively limit residential segregation. And in the case of desegregated

225

R E P O R T O N T H E L I V I N G CO N D I T I O N S O F R O MA H O U S E H O L D S I N S LO VA K I A 2010

schools and classes, it is necessary in the scope of the schooling process from the side of teachers to apply procedures which help them overcome barriers between Roma and non-Roma children.

In the case of adults without qualification, it is desirable to secure an offer and use of programmes focused on supplementing education and professional preparation, keeping in mind the demand and work opportunities in a region.

Work

226

In view of the alarming low measure of employment and the high measure of unemployment of the Roma population, a key task is to improve their access to job opportunities. In general it is necessary to create the conditions for non-discriminatory access of the Roma population to the labour market.

Connected with this (indirectly, but importantly) is the necessity to consider the possibility, and prepare in advance, the introduction of the principles of temporary compensatory measures for the support of employment of members of marginalised Roma communities or socially excluded societies. This step could also take the form of a change in the legislative setup for public procurement so as to support the employment of socially excluded groups.

It is necessary to prepare and to put into practice mechanisms which, in the framework of public orders for towns and municipalities, will be handled by companies which are most associated with the location and the region – with the goal of supporting the local economy. These mechanisms, if they properly prepared, could have a favourable effect on employment and the creation of jobs for members of marginalised Roma communities and socially excluded societies, similarly as temporary compensatory measures for the support of employment.

Inevitably, it is essential to support innovative projects for the support of employment, which would be focused on different possibilities of resolving the bad standing of members of marginalised Roma communities or socially excluded societies on the labour market. In the scope of support measures a long-term task remains to analyse the experience and opportunities for employing long-term unemployed persons from marginalised communities and socially excluded societies through social enterprises or programmes of a similar type. To support the verification of such instruments of the intermediate labour market in or-

der to ease the transfer from registration at labour offices to jobs on the labour market.

It is necessary to expand and stabilise the network of field social work (FSW), including a solution to their financial security in the long-term perspective.

This could be provided, for example, by the transition of FSW from project financing to mandatory financing from the state budget and the transfer of FSW employment from municipalities to the state.

In connection with the expansion and stabilisation of the network of field social workers it is desirable to apply temporary compensatory measures for employing Roma from marginalised environments within this programme.

Equally the network of community work (community centres) should be expanded and systematised, including a solution to adequate financial provisioning from the resources of European funds or the state budget.

And in view of the facts obtained regarding the low influence of activation work in terms of its contribution to the exertion of the Roma population on the labour market, it appears useful to evaluate and possibly reassess this component of the system of activation policies on the labour market. It could be replaced, for example, by community works with standard work relations and enlistment.

It is necessary to evaluate the impact of projects with relevance regarding the horizontal priority “marginalised Roma communities” within the Employment and Social Inclusion operation programme focused on increasing employability of long-term unemployed persons and possibly to change or modify the methods of administration, the goals and the setting of future challenges.

The fulfilling of a second-degree education (ISCED 3) would be necessary to synchronise with long-term strategic forecasts in the area of the labour market – in the interest of overcoming differences between the offer of the labour force and the demands of the labour market.

To search for opportunities to support, create and maintain jobs in rural areas, including so-called “green jobs” in agriculture and forestry management.

This should be supported with appropriate preparation of projects from European funds, as well as national management and legislative policies.

The exceptionally high measure of exclusion of Roma women in particular from the labour market indicates that it is necessary to devote attention to gender-specific measures – support of employment of Roma women, support of opportunities of harmonising family and work obligations and the like.

R E P O R T O N T H E L I V I N G CO N D I T I O N S O F R O MA H O U S E H O L D S I N S LO VA K I A 2010

Social policies In view of the study results, which point to the existence of extremely high material deprivation of Roma households, it is essential from the side of legislators to consistently avoid introducing such measures and instruments which could (directly or indirectly) lead to the deepening of the poverty of individuals and households. This means that it is necessary to very sensitively consider and subsequently work from detailed analysis of the current status, especially with proposals for the reduction of social benefits.

With the increased targeting of social benefits it is necessary to consider the impacts on the living situation of Roma households and their members. Attention should especially be devoted to the impact of those targeted instruments, which require the fulfilment of several conditions. Indirect and unintended consequence of the high conditionality of social transfers and services could be the exclusion of large groups of the populace from the system of support or the wide inaccessibility of some of its components. â&#x20AC;&#x201C; At the same time this also increases excessively the demands for the administration of benefits â&#x20AC;&#x201C; for the recipients themselves as well as for labour offices and the offices for social affairs and family.

With the introduction of new instruments and measures of social policies it is continuously necessary to also consistently check their impact, whether they can lead to indirect discrimination of the Roma population or other disadvantaged groups of citizens.

It is necessary to devote attention to improving relations between members of marginalised Roma communities and the offices for labour, social affairs and family or other institutions through improving the quality and spreading of advice, increasing or improving awareness and the promoting of an individual approach. One of the prerequisites is also the need to expand the capacity of the offices of labour, social affairs and family (as opposed to narrowing them down), so that they are capable of performing expanded consulting and an individual approach in the target group. Another prerequisite could be work with the employees at these offices and sensitising and contextualising the problems they are solving.

Health and hygiene According the data found it appears as essential to devote increased attention on spatial accessibility of health care for members of marginalised Roma communities and socially excluded societies.

It appears as essential to strengthen programmes of health care nurturing and education, including focusing on sexual reproduction and reproductive health, to expand health education and hygiene through the form of applying preventive and educational programmes and to work with families and children in schools, but also through the operation of workers directly in the communities.

It is recommended to stabilise and principally expand the programme of community workers in the field of health care education in all locations so that it corresponds to the breadth of the problem and the number of marginalised communities, including ensuring its continuous functioning. To incorporate community worker in the field of health care education into the catalogue of work activities with the goal of stabilising the profession.

It is necessary to thoroughly improve and update hygiene in settlements and town concentrations and to create appropriate and functional mechanisms for the collection and liquidation of solid communal waste. In connection with this it is needed to create a mechanism for regular disinfestations in segregated Roma communities, in collaboration with local government and the relevant marginalised Roma communities.

In connection with demonstrable problems in the management of waste in segregated and separated settlements and their vicinity it is essential to monitor the state of the environmental burdens (legal and illegal dumps) and other risks to housing in environmentally problematic zones (e.g. flood zones).

In view of the documented insufficiency of Roma households from marginalised environments to drinking water it becomes imperative (for municipalities and the state) to provide without delay accessibility and quality water, especially for separated and segregated settlements, including the introducing of prevention programmes in the interest of maintaining the cleanliness and soundness of these resources.

In view of the fact that existing centres for hygiene and laundry often go unused, it is necessary to analyse barriers to their use, including the attitude of the municipalities in regard to their operation.

While taking into account the number of hygienic problems in marginalised Roma communities it is necessary to properly set up the building and conditions for the functioning of such centres. It is necessary to either promote the existing centres or construct new ones in the scope of a national project of community centre development.

To provide health-educational enlightenment for residents of segregated and separated Roma set-

227

R E P O R T O N T H E L I V I N G CO N D I T I O N S O F R O MA H O U S E H O L D S I N S LO VA K I A 2010

tlements and locations in the field of personal hygiene and care of one’s personal health, education regarding parenthood, reproductive and sexual health, childcare, prevention of infectious diseases, the handling of foodstuffs, the hygiene of nourishment, protection of the environment and hygiene for housing.

Housing To search for and secure public and private resources for sustainable projects for improving the housing infrastructure in marginalised Roma communities.

To motivate municipalities and local councils using appropriate resources for support and subsequent carrying out of such interventions.

Support for microloans and savings programmes for housing which would allow for increasing the quality of housing is shown to be among the supplemental possibilities which actually function. And in connection with this, support for the activities of non-profit organisations in the field of housing in marginalised Roma communities and the use of their experience when setting up support programmes is recommended.

It is recommended to consider the possibility of establishing institutionally coverage for the question of housing and infrastructure in MRC on the level of centralised state administration.

In view of the fact that searching for practical ways to permanently solve the situation of unsettled property and unauthorised buildings remains an open question, it is necessary on the state and municipal level to proceed to principled, methodological or legislatively coordinated steps.

In regard to the large range of demonstrable liabilities for rent and energy it is necessary to find a possible solution to this fateful situation for a great part of marginalised Roma households. In the scope of prepared action programmes of the Strategy of the Slovak Republic for Integration of the Roma up to 2020 (for example, the Action Plan for Financial Inclusion) it would require working out the problem of indebtedness and solutions for debt relief for these households.

General comments

228

An attempt at solving the problems that members of marginalised Roma communities battle with is reflected in a number of proposals for policies and legislative initiative in the decision-making sphere. The most significant initiative recently was the legisla-

tive intent of the law on socially excluded societies which posits as its target: “to support increased intervention of state policies into the environment of communities defined by concentrated and intergenerational poverty and bearing the signs of social exclusion”. This intention of the law tries to respond to the problem of concentrated and intergenerational poverty “on a non-ethnic (socio-economic and territorial) basis”.

The data analysed in this report on one hand clearly indicates that the spatial aspect of social exclusion (“disadvantaged entire location”) is an important determinant of marginalisation and poverty of whole groups of citizens. On the other hand, in the majority of the monitored indicators the environments of households of the Roma population demonstrated worse parameters than households from the general population and did so despite the geographic proximity. The living conditions of Roma households were in the majority of indicators worse and in many dimensions significantly worse than the living conditions of non-Roma households from the nearby surroundings. Therefore, it can be deduced that the ethnic membership of household members was repeatedly shown to be a strong differentiating agent.

On the basis of these comments it is therefore necessary, upon consideration of appropriate policies and measures, to keep in mind that a suitable combination of both approaches – the “territorial” and the “ethnic” – could lead to the required positive changes.

The mentioned combined approach is in line with Recommendation no. 2 of the European Council’s Platform for Roma (within the document Ten common basic principles for Roma inclusion from April 2009), which postulates “specific, but not exclusive, targeting of policies and programmes” for Roma. And additional principles of the Roma platform offer a suitable framework for the design and implementation of policies in the scope of this problem: 1) constructive, pragmatic and non-discriminatory policies; 2) specific, but not exclusive targeting of policies and programmes; 3) an intercultural approach; 4) orientation on the majority society; 5) consideration of the gender viewpoint; 6) the assigning of policies established on obtained knowledge; 7) the use of EU instruments; 8) involvement of regional and local bodies; 9) involvement of civic societies; 10) active participation of Roma.

Regarding general comments from the processing of data, it needs to be added that with the designing and carrying out of public policies and measures it is necessary to consistently consider and apply principles of spatial and residential desegregation.

R E P O R T O N T H E L I V I N G CO N D I T I O N S O F R O MA H O U S E H O L D S I N S LO VA K I A 2010

Consideration of this principle is shown as one of the key agents with improvements of the living conditions of Roma households â&#x20AC;&#x201C; in nearly all of the monitored fields, the indicators appeared better for households living more integrated with the majority population (separated, but mainly diffused) in comparisons with the segregated environments.

It is also necessary and essential to continuously require the observing of anti-discrimination legislation and to do so for each circumstance.

Among general recommendations it is possible to add the need for stabilising the conditions for the systematic collection of data about the socio-economic circumstances of the life of Roma households, for the monitoring and evaluating of policies, programmes and projects focused on socially excluded societies. It is also necessary to monitor the prac-

tice of carrying out the relevant projects and measures on the level of municipalities.

Particularly (but not only) from the viewpoint of improving the conditions of health status of the Roma population living in socially excluded societies, it is essential to monitor the situation relating to places of living located on old environmentally encumbered sites, to support the building of resources and the construction and maintenance of sewerage. For the same reasons it is also necessary to regularly carry out surveys of the accessibility of health unobjectionable drinking water. In those settlements where such water is not available it is necessary without delay to provide it â&#x20AC;&#x201C; and in view of UN resolution OSN (GA/10967) acknowledging access to clean water and sanitation as a basic human right.

229

Literature Atlas rómskych komunít na Slovensku 2004. Bratislava: S.P.A.C.E., IVO a KCRO. ABU GHOSH, Y., 2008: Kam stát nevidí, nasadí vědce. In: A2, č. 11.

Babies and Bosses: Reconciling Work and Family Life. 2007, Paríž: OECD. BAJO, I. – VAŠEK, Š., 1994: Pedagogika mentálne postihnutých (Psychopédia). Bratislava: Sapientia.

BAKER, M. – DWAYNE, B., 1994: The performance of Immigrants in the Canadian Labour Market. In: Journal of Labour Economics, 12, pp. 369-405.

BARLETT, W., 2011: Measures to Promote the Situation of Roma EU Citizens in the European Union. Brusel: European Parliament, Policy Department.

BERRKEL, R. – MOLLER, I.H., 2002: Active Social Policies in the EU: Inclusion through Participation? Bristol: The Policy Press.

BODNÁROVÁ, B. – DŽAMBAZOVIČ, R. – FILADELFIOVÁ, J. – GERBERY, D. – KVAPILOVÁ, E. – PORUBÄNOVÁ, S., 2004: Transformácia sociálneho systému na Slovensku: stav, výsledky, riziká narušenia sociálnej súdržnosti a modely riešenia. Priebežná správa z 1. etapy riešenia úlohy. Bratislava: Stredisko pre štúdium práce a rodiny.

BODNÁROVÁ, B. – FILADELFIOVÁ, J.– GERBERY, D. – DŽAMBAZOVIČ, R. – KVAPILOVÁ E., 2006: Premeny sociálnej politiky. Bratislava: Inštitút pre výskum práce a rodiny.

BORJAS, G. J., 1985: Assimilation, Changes in Cohort Quality, and the Earnings of Immigrants. In: Journal of labour Economics, 3, pp. 463-489.

BRUEGGEMANN, CH., 2011: Bildungsarmut in der Slowakei: Wenn Sonderschulen zu ethnisch segregierten Räumen warden. Tertium Comparationis. In: Journal fur International und Interkulturell Vergleichende Erziehungswissenschaft. Vol. 17, 2, pp. X-XX. BÚTOROVÁ, Z., 2008: Ona a On na Slovensku. Zaostrené na rod a vek. Bratislava: IVO. BÚTOROVÁ, Z., 1996: Ona a On na Slovensku. Ženský údel vo svetle verejnej mienky. Bratislava: FOCUS. CONSTANT, A. – GATAULLINA, L. – ZIMMERMANN, K. F., 2006: Gender, Ethnic Identity and Work. In: Discussion Paper, 2420. Bonn: IZA. CVIKOVÁ, J. – JURÁŇOVÁ, J., 2003: Ružový a modrý svet.

Rodové stereotypy a ich dôsledky. Bratislava: Občan a demokracia a Aspekt.

Databáza Slovstat. 2011, Bratislava: Štatistický úrad SR. Dáta o ľudských právach rómskych žien. 2009, Banská Bystrica, Kultúrne združenie Rómov Slovenska.

DEBRECÉNIOVÁ, J. – FILADELFIOVÁ, J. – MAĎAROVA Z., 2010: Rodové dôsledky krízy: Aspekty vybraných prípadov.

Bratislava: Záujmové združenie žien Aspekt.

Dekáda začleňovania rómskej populácie 2005-2015. Iniciatíva prijatá európskymi štátmi vo februári. 2005, ktorú podporuje OSF, Svetová banka, UNDP, Európska komisia a ďalší.

De Laat, et al.: Roma Inclusion: An Economic Opportunity for Bulgaria, Czech Republic, Romania and Serbia. 2009, Policy Note. World Bank, Human Development Sector Unit, Europe and Central Asia Region.

Deklarácia a Akčný program Svetovej konferencie proti rasizmu, rasovej diskriminácii, xenofóbii a súvisiacej intolerancii.

Durban, 31. augusta – 7. septembra 2001. 2001, OSN. Desať spoločných základných zásad pre začlenenie Rómov.

Rómska platforma Rady Európskej únie. Apríl 2009.

Dohovor o odstránení všetkých foriem diskriminácie žien. 1979, New York: OSN. EVANS, V.: Sampling for the Vulnerable Communities SurveySlovakia. Rukopis.

EK, 2005: Cohesion policy in support of growth and jobs, Community strategic guidelines 2007-2013. [online] <http://ec.europa.eu/regional_policy/sources/docoffic/2007/osc/050706osc_en.pdf>.

EK, 2011: An EU Framework for National Roma Integration Strategies up to 2020. Communication from the European Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions. COM(2011) 173 final. Brusel, 5 Apríl 2011.

Employment in Europe 2010. 2010, Brusel, Európska komisia: Directorate-General for Employment, Social Affairs and Equal Opportunities.

ENAR, 2011: Racism and Discrimination in Slovakia. European Network Against Racism Shadow Report 2009-2010. The International Law Research and Human Rights Monitoring Centre 2011. [online] < http://www.enareu.org/Page_Generale.asp?DocID=15294>.

Európsky výskum hodnôt. /European Values Studies. Medzinárodný komparatívny výskum za krajiny Európy, ktorý sa uskutočnil v roku 1990 a 1999. Údaje z výskumu sú dostupné na Sociologickom ústave SAV, prípadne aj spracované porovnanie z druhej výskumnej série: Názory obyvateľov Slovenska v medzinárodnom porovnaní. 1. časť. 1999/2000. Tiburg University – Sociologický ústav SAV, Bratislava 1990 a 1999.

EU-SILC 2010: Zisťovanie o príjmoch a životných podmienkach. Informatívne správy Štatistického úradu SR. Bratislava: Štatistický úrad SR, 1. júla 2010. [online] [cit.

1. 07. 2010] <http://portal.statistics.sk/files/Sekcie/ sek_600/Demografia/inf_sprava/EU_SILC_2009.pdf>.

EHIS 2009 – Európske zisťovanie o zdraví. Bratislava: Štatistický úrad SR 2010.

Európa 2020. 2010, Brusel: Európska komisia.

231

R E P O R T O N T H E L I V I N G CO N D I T I O N S O F R O MA H O U S E H O L D S I N S LO VA K I A 2010

232

FILADELFIOVÁ, J. – BÚTOROVÁ, Z., 2010: Rovnosť žien a mužov. In: M. Kollár – G. Mesežnikov – M. Bútora (eds.): Slovensko 2010: Správa o stave spoločnosti a demokracie a o trendoch na rok 2011. Bratislava: Inštitút pre verejné otázky 2011, pp. 357-404.

FILADELFIOVÁ, J., 2010a: Ženy a muži v práci a v rodine: Prečo je užitočná rodová perspektíva v ekonómii. In: Cviková, J. (ed.): Rodová perspektíva v ekonómii: Aspekty mocenských vzťahov. Bratislava, Záujmové združenie žien Aspekt, pp. 77-117.

FILADELFIOVÁ, J., 2010b: Rodové dimenzie krízy: Situácia na trhu práce a vládne protikrízové opatrenia. In: J. Debrecéniová – J. Filadelfiová – Z. Maďarová: Rodové dôsledky krízy: Aspekty vybraných prípadov. Bratislava: Záujmové združenie žien Aspekt, pp. 11-67.

FILADELFIOVÁ, J., 2007 (Z. Bútorová ed.): Ženy, muži a vek v štatistikách trhu práce. Bratislava: Inštitút pre verejné otázky.

FILADELFIOVÁ, J., 2002: Rodové štatistiky. Bratislava: MPSVR SR – MSŠR. FILADELFIOVÁ, J. – GERBERY, D. – ŠKOBLA, D., 2006: Správa o životných podmienkach rómskych domácností na Slovensku. Bratislava: UNDP a FES. FILČÁK, R. – ŠKOBLA, D., 2011: Social Solidarity, Human Rights and Roma: Unequal Access to Basic Resourcies in Central and Eastern Europe. In: Ellison, M. (ed.) Reinventing social solidarity across Europe. Bristol: The Policy Press, pp. 227-249.

FILČÁK, R., 2007: Životné prostredie. Diferencovaná distribúcia environmentálnych pozitív a rizík a vplyv chudoby na životné prostredie. In: Gerbery, D. – Lesay, I.Škobla, D. (eds): Kniha o chudobe, spoločenské súvislosti a verejné politiky. Bratislava: CEPA/FES, pp. 79-92.

FUDGE, J. – OWENS, R. (eds.), 2006: Precarious Work, Women, and the New Economy: The Challenge to Legal Norms. Oxford UK – Portland Oregon: Hart Publishing.

GRILL, J., 2011: On the margins of the states. Contesting Gypsyness and belonging in the Slovak-UkrainianHungarian Borderlands and in selected migration contexts. University of St Andrews. Rukopis.

HANZLOVÁ, E. – BELLAN, P., 2009: Riešenie dlhodobej nezamestnanosti v krajinách EÚ s dôrazom na jej špecifiká a možností aplikácie dobrých skúseností v podmienkach SR. Bratislava: IVPR. HOLUBOVÁ, B., 2009 – 2010: Súhrnná správa o stave rodovej rovnosti na Slovensku za rok 2009 a 2010. Bratislava: Inštitút pre výskum práce a rodiny.

Chudoba Rómov a sociálna starostlivosť o nich v Slovenskej republike. 2002, Bratislava: Svetová banka, S.P.A.C.E., INEKO a OSI. IVANOV, A. – TURSALIEV, S., 2006: Microlending to the Roma in Central and Southeastern Europe: Mixed Results, New Approaches. In: Comparative Economic Studies, č. 48, pp. 36–49.

IVO, 2006: Empirické údaje zo sociologického výskumu v rámci projektu EQUAL „Plus pre ženy 45+“. Bratislava: Inštitút pre verejné otázky.

KALLEBERG, A. L., 2009: Precarious Work, Insecure Workers: Employment Relations in Transition. In: American Sociological Review, Vol. 74, pp. 1 – 22.

KÁRÁSZ, P., 2009: Vplyv globálnej ekonomickej krízy na vývoj hospodárstva Slovenska so zreteľom na trh práce.

Bratislava: Friedrich Ebert Stiftung.

KOLARCIK, P. – MADAROSOVA-GECKOVA, A. – OROSOVA, O. – Dijk, J. P. – REIJNEVELD, S. A., 2009: To what extent does socioeconomic status explain differences in health between Roma and non-Roma adolescents in Slovakia?. In: Social Science & Medicine, č.68, pp.1279–1284.

KUSÁ, Z., 2011: Bytová politika a dostupnosť bývania na Slovensku. In: Gerbery, D. (ed.) Potrebujeme sociálny štát? Niektoré úvahy (nielen) o verejnej politike. Bratislava: FES. KUSÁ, Z. – BOROVANOVÁ M., RUSNÁKOVÁ J. 2011:Slovakia. In: Contested Issue of Social Inclusion through Education. (Ed.) Julia Szalai, EDUMIGROM Final Study, p. 314 – 341 [online] <https://www.edumigrom.eu/sites/default/files/field_attachment/page/node-5387/edumigrom-final-study.pdf>.

Legislatívny zámer zákona o sociálne vylúčených spoločenstvách. September 2012, MPSVR SR. MILCHER, S., 2006: Poverty and the Determinants of Welfare for Roma and Other Vulnerable Groups in Southeastern Europe. In: Comparative Economic Studies č. 48, pp. 20-35. [online] <http://www.palgrave-journals.com/ ces/journal/v48/n1/pdf/8100148a.pdf>.

Monitorovacia správa o plnení Záverečných zistení Výboru pre odstránenie diskriminácie žien v SR. Bratislava: Možnosť voľby 2011.

MUŠINKA, A., 2004: Rómovia v Prešovskom kraji. In: D. Scheffel – A. Mušinka (eds), Rómska marginalita. Prešov: CAV. Národná správa o stratégiách sociálnej ochrany a sociálnej inklúzie na roky 2008 – 2010. 2008, Bratislava: MPSVR SR. Národný program reforiem Slovenskej republiky na roky 2008-2010. 2007, Bratislava: Vláda SR. Národný akčný plán k Dekáde začleňovania rómskej populácie 2005-2015. 2005, Bratislava: Uznesenie Vlády SR z 12. januára 2005, Vláda SR. Národný akčný plán sociálnej inklúzie 2004-2006 a 2008-2010.

2003 a 2007, Bratislava: MPSVR SR. NOS, 2011: Odpovede na otázky desegregácie rómskych žiakov vo vzdelávacom systéme na Slovensku. Bratislava.

OSN, 1989: Dohovor o právach dieťaťa (v SR Zb. zákonov č.

104/1991).

OSN, 1994: Medzinárodná konferencia OSN o populácii a rozvoji a jej akčný plán.

PACHEROVÁ, S, 2011.: Nútené živnosti koalícia nestopne.

Pravda, 12.6.2011.

R E P O R T O N T H E L I V I N G CO N D I T I O N S O F R O MA H O U S E H O L D S I N S LO VA K I A 2010

RADIČOVÁ, I., 2011: Chudoba Rómov vo vzťahu k trhu práce v SR. In: Sociológia 33, č. 5, pp. 439-456.

REIMERG, C. W. 1985: Cultural Differences in Labou Force Participation among married Women. In: American Economic Association Papers and Proceedings, No. 75, pp.

251-255.

Report on Equality between Women and Men 2010.

Brusel: EK. REVENGA, A. et al., 2006: Poverty and ethnicity: a cross-country study of Roma poverty in Central Europe. Washington DC: World Bank.

REF, 2009: School as a Ghetto, Systemic overrepresentation of Roma in special education in Slovakia. Budapest.

RINGOLD, D. et al., 2004: Roma in an Expanding Europe: Breaking the Poverty Cycle. Washington DC: World Bank.

SCHOENI, R., 1998: Labour market Assimilation of Immigrant Women. In: Industrial and Labour Relations Review, č. 51, pp. 483-504.

SCHAEFFEL, D., 2009: Svinia v čiernobielom: slovenskí Rómovia a ich susedia. Prešov: Centrum antropologických výskumov.

Správa o sociálnej situácii obyvateľov SR 2010. 2011, Bratislava: MPSVR SR. Smernica Rady 2000/43/ES z 29. júna 2000, ktorá ustanovuje zásadu rovnakého zaobchádzania s osobami bez ohľadu na ich rasový alebo etnický pôvod.

Rada EÚ 2000a.

Smernica Rady 2000/78/ES z 27. novembra 2000, ktorá ustanovuje všeobecný rámec pre rovnaké zaobchádzanie v zamestnaní a povolaní. Rada EÚ 2000b.

Smernica Rady 2004/113/ES z 13. decembra 2004 o vykonávaní zásady rovnakého zaobchádzania s mužmi a ženami v prístupe k tovarom a službám a k ich poskytovaniu.

Rada EÚ 2004.

Správa o stave zdravotníctva na Slovensku. Bratislava: Ministerstvo zdravotníctva SR 2011. ŠKOBLA, D. – LEONIKAS, T. – ŠTĚPÁNKOVÁ, M., 2008: Etnicita ako štatistický ukazovateľ pri monitorovaní životných podmienok a diskriminácie. Bratislava: UNDP, FES. Stratégia Slovenskej republiky pre integráciu Rómov do roku 2020. ÚV SR 2011. Štruktúra miezd v SR 2010. 2011, Bratislava: Štatistický úrad SR. Tieňová správa pre Výbor pre odstránenie diskriminácie žien. 2008, Bratislava: skupina 8 MVO. TOMATOVÁ, I., 2004: Na vedľajšej koľaji. Je proces zaraďovania rómskych detí do špeciálnych základných škôl znevýhodňujúcim činiteľom? Bratislava: SGI. UNDP, 2002: The Roma in Central and Eastern Europe: Avoiding the Dependency Trap. Regional Human Development Report. Bratislava: UNDP. UNDP, 2003: Únik z pasce závislosti. Rómovia v strednej a východnej Európe, Bratislava: UNDP. UNDP, 2006: Zamestnávanie Rómov: Názory podnikov, Bratislava.

UNDP, 2006: At Risk: Roma and Displaced in Southeast Europe, Bratislava.

Uznesenie Európskeho parlamentu 12. marca 2009 o vode v súvislosti s konaním 5. svetového fóra o vode v Istanbule, v dňoch 16.-22. marca 2009. Európsky parlament 2009.

VAŠEČKA, M (ed.), 2002: Čačipen pal o Roma. Súhrnná správa o Rómoch na Slovensku. Bratislava: IVO. VAŠEČKA, M. – REPOVÁ, I. – DŽAMBAZOVIČ, R., 2000: Inštitucionálna báza riešenia rómskej problematiky na Slovensku v súčasnosti, IOM. Zdravotnícka ročenka SR 2009. 2010, Bratislava: Národné centrum zdravotníckych informácií. [online] <http://www. nczisk.sk/Documents/rocenky/rocenka_2009.pdf>.

233

UNDP Bratislava Regional Centre Grosslingova 35 811 09 Bratislava Slovak Republic Tel.:(421-2)59337-111 Fax.:(421-2)59337-450 http://europeandcis.undp.org

ISBN 978-80-89263-11-0