Integration Strategies for Poor Urban Areas and Disadvantaged Communities 2013

8/11/2019 Integration Strategies for Poor Urban Areas and Disadvantaged Communities 2013

1/163

Qualitative

Assessment

Integration Strategies for Urban Poor

Areas and Disadvantaged Communities

June 2013

Project coordinator:

Rob Swinkels

Research team:

Manuela Sofia Stnculescu

(coord.)

Simona Anton

Bogdan Corad

Ctlina Iamandi-Cioinaru

Oana Irina Fechete

Mihai Magheru

Georgiana Neculau

Mara Laura Stnculescu

Andreea Trocea

Rzvan Voinescu

Bucharest


2/163

2

List of acronyms

The acronyms of the public institutions are in the Romanian language

CBSCommunity-Based Services

DGASPCGeneral Directorate for Social Assistance and Child Protection

INS - National Institute for Statistics

MMFPS - Ministry of Labor, Family and Social ProtectionMDRAP - Ministry of Regional Development and Public Administration

MS - Ministry of Health

MER -Ministry of Education and Research

NGONon-governmental organization

SPASPublic Social Assistance Service (within mayoralty)

The findings and interpretation expressed in this paper are those of the authors, and do not

necessarily represent the views of the World Bank.


3/163

3

Content

1

Introduction ......................................................................................................................... 4

2 Study methodology .............................................................................................................. 5

2.1 Objectives and approach ....................................................................................................... 5

2.2 Geographical coverage and the selection of cities ................................................................ 6

2.3 Data and method ................................................................................................................... 7

3 Main findings ....................................................................................................................... 9

3.1 Types of zones and main problems ....................................................................................... 9

3.1.1

Economically disadvantaged cities .................................................................................... 9

3.1.2

Areas with poor access to infrastructure .......................................................................... 9

3.1.3 Marginalized areas .......................................................................................................... 11

3.2 Types of community interventions ...................................................................................... 20

3.2.1 Relation between the local authorities and poor communities ..................................... 21

3.2.2 Good practices ................................................................................................................ 23

4 Lessons learned .................................................................................................................. 26

4.1.1 Urban development with the people and not for the people ........................................ 27

5 Annex 1: Research Instruments ........................................................................................... 28

5.1

Focus group discussion guide .............................................................................................. 28

5.2 Interview guide .................................................................................................................... 33

6 Annex 2: City reports .......................................................................................................... 35

6.1

Field Report: Baia Mare ...................................................................................................... 35

6.2

Field Report: Trgu Mure.................................................................................................. 54

6.3 Field Report: Strehaia ......................................................................................................... 69

6.4 Field Report: Brila............................................................................................................. 77

6.5 Field Report: Dorohoi ......................................................................................................... 93

6.6

Field Report: Clan............................................................................................................ 108

6.7 Field Report: Oltenia....................................................................................................... 120

6.8 Field Report: Slobozia ....................................................................................................... 130

6.9 Field Report: Alba Iulia...................................................................................................... 143

6.10 Field Report: Bucharest Sector 5 ...................................................................................... 154


4/163

4

1IntroductionThe Romanian Ministry of Regional Development and Public Administration (MDRAP) has requested

the World Bank for assistance with the elaboration of integration strategies for poor and

marginalized urban communities. This assignment includes: (1) proposing a methodology fordefining different types of urban disadvantaged communities based on a selection of key indicators,

(2) producing detailed maps that depict the spatial distribution of the key indicators and these types

of communities, and (3) the elaboration of strategies for integrating these communities.

This report relates to the third component of the assignment which includes a qualitative study

aimed to identify factors of success for urban integration strategies in the Romanian context, to

contribute to the planning and design of improved policies for inclusion of urban disadvantaged

communities.

In this regard, ten localities were selected in close cooperation with the MDRAP representatives,

namely Alba Iulia, Baia Mare, Brila, Clan, Dorohoi, Slobozia, Strehaia, Trgu Mure as well as

Sector 2 and Sector 5 from the capital Bucharest. The selected cities cover a diversity of urbansettings in which are found all three theoretically identified types of marginalized urban areas.

With respect to the theoretical typology of the urban disadvantaged communities we draw on the

First Preliminary Report of the project (April 28, 2013). Thus, the study focuses on the following

three main types of urban disadvantaged communities (areas or zones):

(1)Areas with poor access to infrastructure

This category refers to particularly old neighborhoods of houses or groupings of apartment buildings

(mainly built in the 60s-70s), which are in rather poor state, poorly endowed with utilities, and

without modern roads. This type of urban communities may comprise an entire administrative

locality e.g. small towns that are urban in administrative sense but with livelihoods resembling rural

areas. They may also comprise parts of a middle or large city e.g. a peripheral neighborhood or poorintra-city neighborhood.

(2) Economically disadvantaged areas

This category refers to particularly (small) mono-industrial or agricultural towns, formerly dependent

on a large state enterprise or an agricultural cooperative. The majority of these settlements are

(rural) communes that only administratively were declared towns, most often being poorly endowed

with urban utilities. The own revenues to the local budget are very low, they being dependent on the

redistribution mechanism from the central budget. Employment opportunities are generally very

limited in these towns, although, mostly due to international migration, their official registered

unemployment rates may not reflect well this lack of opportunity.

(3) Marginalized areas

Small areas within or beyond the cities formal residential boundaries that are marginalized in a

number of ways poor or no access to infrastructure, high degrees of unemployment among

residents, few or no education and health centre, in some cases hazardous environmental

conditions. In many cases, these communities may also concentrate Roma population.

Some of these zones, as defined in a 2001 study,1include communities of improvised shelters, often

near a garbage dump site with residents living from refunded scrap metal or other goods found in

the garbage, social housing buildings in the historical town centre, former hostels for single workers

1Stnculescu and Berevoescu (coord.) (2004) Srac lipit, caut alt via! Fenomenul srciei extreme i al zonelor srace n

Romnia 2001, Ed. Nemira, Bucharest.


5/163

5

where some residents have remained after closure of enterprises with uncertain ownership status or

other buildings in former industrial areas at the city periphery.

These three main types of urban disadvantaged communities (areas or zones) are expected to

prevail in Romania's urban environment and have been determined based on three primary level

criteria - human capital (education, health and household structure), employment and housing, and

on one secondary level criterion - ethnicity (especially Roma). Thus:

(1) Areas with poor access to infrastructurerefer to urban areas disadvantaged only regarding the

housing criterion and not on the employment criterion; with respect to human capital and ethnicity,

the situation varies from an area to another.

(2) Economically disadvantaged areas represent by definition urban areas disadvantaged only

regarding the employment criterion and not on the human capital criterion; with respect to housing

and ethnicity, the situation varies from an area to another.

(3) Marginalized areas are urban areas that cumulate disadvantages on human capital, employment

and housing; with respect to ethnicity, the situation varies from an area to another.

In terms of level of measurement, the areas with poor access to infrastructure and the marginalizedareas are expected to be identified at the intra-city level, whereas economically disadvantaged areas

(as defined above) relate most probably to whole localities, mainly small (former) mono-industrial or

agricultural cities, in which the local economy collapsed.

2Study methodology

2.1 Objectives and approach

The qualitative study presented in this report has two main objectives:

-

Validate the maps resulted from the analysis of the 2011 Census data, through a qualitativeassessment.

-

Identify factors of success of urban integration strategies in the context of Romania, to contribute

to the planning and design of improved policies for urban inclusion.

The first objective of the study could not be achieved. Due to the lack of data availability, the city

maps based on 2011 Census data could not be produced. Census data will be available only after the

official launching, which is planned for 4th July 2013. Also, shape files including census tracks were

not made available by the local authorities from Brila, Bucharest Sector 2 and Sector 5 as well as

Oltenia (where the research instruments were piloted).

Therefore, the study approach was altered. Instead of validating the city maps, we turned to an

exploratory approach. Through qualitative research methods, we identified, together with the local

stakeholders, which are the disadvantaged areas within their city according to their views and

knowledge. The research team, however, informed the local stakeholders about the theoretical

types of disadvantaged areas. In other words, we have gathered data regarding the areas which are

perceived and considered disadvantaged by the local people, which in many cases are not based on

solid evidence but on perceptions, values, local legends and so. Nevertheless, nearly all identified

disadvantaged areas were visited and documented based on interviews with residents (including

informal leaders), with institutional representatives working in these communities as well as based

on direct observation and photography.

The assessment has included in-depth interviews with representatives of local authorities and civil

society and focus group discussions with residents from the ten selected cities, either living in urban


6/163

6

disadvantaged areas or neighbors. In addition, the research team carried out field visits, direct

observation and photographical documentation in the poor areas.

2.2 Geographical coverage and the selection of cities

The study covers eight cities and two sectors of Bucharest, which were selected together with theMDRAP representatives, plus Oltenia city, where the field instruments were piloted. These cities

were selected in order to cover a range of urban settings from all development regions of the

country. Criteria of selection included: (1) size of population;2 (2) level of social development;

3 (3)

profile of the local economy;4(4) the existence of vulnerable housing;

5(5) a positive attitude of the

mayoralty towards vulnerable people;6(6) previous experiences at the city level in implementation

of projects/ actions for the integration of marginalized areas.

Table 1. Selected cities for the qualitative assessment

Development

RegionCounty Locality Name

Size of

population

Social

development

level

Local economy

profile

Previous

experience

South Muntenia Clrai Oltenia small poor Former industrial No

Northeast Botoani Dorohoi small poor Former industrial Yes

Southeast Brila Brila medium medium Yes

South Muntenia Ialomia Slobozia medium medium Yes

Southwest Oltenia Mehedini Strehaia small poor(mono) industrial

in declineNo

West Hunedoara Clan small poor(mono) industrial

in declineNo

Northwest Maramure Baia Mare medium developed Yes

Centre Alba Alba Iulia medium medium Yes

Centre Mure Trgu Mure medium developed Yes

Bucharest-Ilfov Bucharest Bucharest Sector 2Don't

know

Bucharest-Ilfov Bucharest Bucharest Sector 5 Yes

2Three types were considered: small towns - bellow 35,000 inhabitants; medium-size cities - between 35,000 and 249,999

inhabitants; large cities - 250,000 inhabitants and over. INS data on stable population from 2010.3Estimated based on the Local Social Development Index - IDSL (Sandu, 2011). IDSL is computed for all rural and urban

localities in Romania, as factor score of seven variables: (1) community education stock (data Census, 2002); (2) average

age of population 15+ years (data 2008); (3) life expectancy at birth (mean 2006-2008); (4) automobiles per 1,000

inhabitants (data 2007); (5) average surface per dwelling (data 2008); (6) consumption of gas per inhabitant in mc (data

2008); (7) residency and size of population (in 2008). IDSL estimate the community capital with its human (indicator 1),

vital (indicators 2, 3 and 7) and material (indicators 4, 5 and 6) components. Data from the National Institute for Statistics.

Data and methodology available athttp://sites.google.com/site/dumitrusandu/4Determined based on a small urban knowledge-typology developed within a previous World Bank study (Stnculescu,

2005, K-Typologies of the rural and small urban communities in Romania , World Bank Report).5Vulnerable housing determined based on the following two items, declared by local authorities, as at 31st July 2009: (a)

within city there are households living in makeshift, abandoned or unhealthy housing; (b) within city there are areas with

more than 10 poor Roma households, living in makeshift, abandoned or unhealthy housing. Data from a research financed

by the Soros Foundation Romania - Local Authorities Access to European Funds (2009), survey of local Romanian

municipalities, with a response rate of almost 94%, implemented by a consortium formed by the Romanian Centre for

Economic Modeling (CERME), Research Institute for the Quality of Life (ICCV) and the National Centre for Training in

Statistics (CNPS-INS).6 Mayoraltys attitude towards vulnerable people was estimated based on the following two items, declared by local

authorities, as at 31st July 2009: (a) the municipality have either a local development strategy, which include measures for

the inclusion of vulnerable groups, or implement a set of actions in order to assist the disadvantaged groups; (b) the

municipality offer voluntary services, facilities, assistance to disadvantaged groups, other than the national socialprograms. Data from a research financed by the Soros Foundation Romania - Local Authorities Access to European Funds

(2009), see more information in the previous footnote.
http://sites.google.com/site/dumitrusandu/http://sites.google.com/site/dumitrusandu/http://sites.google.com/site/dumitrusandu/http://sites.google.com/site/dumitrusandu/


7/163

7

2.3 Data and method

Data were collected during the period 25 May - 21 June 2013 by a team of individual consultants,

coordinated by Manuela Sofia Stnculescu. The fieldwork was based on an interview guide and afocus group guide, which are shown in Annex 1. Interviews with institutional representatives and

focus group discussions were recorded.7Discussions during visits in poor zones were not recorded,

but the collected information is included in the present analysis.

The research team8 realized a 10-minute movie covering all poor zones identified in Oltenia. In

addition, more than 700 photos were done in the visited disadvantaged communities.9

Overall, 31 in-depth interviews were conducted with: local decision makers (mayor, vice mayor),

representatives of urbanism department of the municipality (urban planner, architect),

representatives of the Public Social Assistance Services of the municipalities (director, inspector,

Roma mediator), and representatives of the NGOs or civil society locally active in urban

marginalization. In the short period available for data collection, only two interviews could beorganized in Bucharest, both on Sector 5. In spite of our efforts, local authorities from Bucharest

Sector 2 could not be contacted.

A total of 20 focus group discussions were organized in all cities, with the exception of Bucharest

Sector 2. The participants at focus groups were either residents of marginalized urban areas or their

neighbors. On the whole, 137 persons participated in focus group discussions.10

The participants

distribute by age-gender-ethnic categories as follows:

Men Women

Ethnicity

Young

(15-29 years)

Middle-aged

(30-64 years)

Elderly

(65+ years)

Young

(15-29 years)

Middle-aged

(30-64 years)

Elderly

(65+ years)

Romanian 3 38 2 7 38 0

Hungarian 0 2 0 0 2 0Roma 3 13 0 8 21 0

Note: Persons aged 65 years or more are very few because in the studied areas they are definitely under-represented.

The participants are representative for a large variety of social situations. Regarding the human

capital criterion (out of the 137 participants):

- 20% of participants come from small-size households (1-2 persons), 40% belong to typical nuclear

families with 3-4 members, while the other 40% live in larger families with 5-12 members.

- 31% are childless households, 20% have one child, 27% have two children, while 22% have 3 to 6

children

- 37% have within the household one to three members with a disability or a severe chronic disease

- as much as 22% have no formal school, 18% have completed only primary education (1-4 classes),

29% have graduated gymnasium. Thus, more than two thirds (68%) have completed 8 classes at

most, which on the one hand, reflect the extreme deficit of formal education in these urban

disadvantaged areas and on the other hand, represent a serious barrier for employment or for being

admitted in life-long learning courses for the participants to our study. Only 19% have some

vocational training, 8% high school, and 5% are University graduates.

7Verbatim transcripts in the Romanian language are available at request (a document of more than 660 pages).

8In collaboration with Drago Sabadac cinematographer.

9Photos were done only with the consent of the participants to the study.

10From 137 households that include 602 persons (children and adults).


8/163

8

Informal (casual)

workers

8%

Jobless actively

looking for a job

18%

Pensioners

8%

Housewives and

other dependants

40%

Formal employees

26%

The low human capital is reflected in a weak position on the labor market and, consequently, in low

and irregular incomes. Thus, the proportion of employees is extremely low (26%), while the share of

the economically dependant persons is very high (40%), as figure 1 shows.

Figure 1 Distribution of participants to the focus group discussions by main employment status

Data: Urban Poor Areas and

Disadvantaged Communities,

Qualitative assessment (June

2013). N=137 persons 16+

years.

Correlated, 62% of participants belong to households with no wage earner (38% have 1 to 4

employees) and 80% do not benefit of any type of pension. So, for most participants, informal work

and social benefits (especially child allowance and Minimum Guaranteed Income) represent the

main livelihoods.

The large majority (82%) reached the city before 1989, but only 37% of them lived in the current

poor area at that time. Within the city, they changed several locations (lived with relatives, rent),

with periods of homelessness mixed with attempts to work abroad, and in the end they moved in

the poor area as the only place with dwellings affordable for them. Thus, 20% of them reached the

poor area during the '90s, other 20% sometime between 2000 and 2005, and 23% after 2005,

particularly during the crisis years 2011-2012.

With regard to the housing conditions, out of the 137 participants to focus groups, 56% live in

houses, 38% in apartments in block of flats, and 7% in improvised shelters, usually built abusively on

the public domain. About a third have rent their dwelling from the municipality, only 3% have

private rent, and the rest are owners of their dwellings or shelters, but only a part of them have

property papers over dwellings and/or land. Their dwellings have between 5 and 300 m2, with a

predominance of those of 10-40 m2 (about 70%), and are rather poorly endowed with utilities for

the urban environment: 22% are not connected to electricity, 21% have no running water and as

much as 35% have no sewerage system.

As a result, most of the interviewees emphasized that they are 'poor' even among the 'poorest', with

no prospects to escape the vicious circle of poverty and with little to offer to their children.

Considering all three dimensions used to built the theoretical typology, we can say that the situationof the participants to focus groups appear to confirm the fact that most identified areas are among

the urban marginalized communities.


9/163

9

3Main findings

3.1 Types of zones and main problems

The qualitative assessment confirms the theoretical typology. All three main types of urbandisadvantaged areas were identified in the field: (1) economically disadvantaged cities, (2) areas with

poor access to infrastructure and (3) marginalized areas. However, the later two types include a

variety of subtypes, which are discussed below. For more details, Annex 2 presents the city reports

including information on all disadvantaged communities identified in the field.

3.1.1 Economically disadvantaged cities

All four small cities (Clan, Dorohoi, Oltenia, and Strehaia) included in the study are considered

economically disadvantaged cities, by consensus, mainly due to the decline of the local economy

after 1990. For example, in Strehaia, the private sector offers currently 'mere 40-50 jobs, mostly for

women'. In all these cities, the former socialist enterprises, which used to hire a considerable part ofthe population and for which thousands of workers were moved from the rural areas during the '60

and '70, are now only ruins to be greened. The generalized lack of jobs has been repeatedly

mentioned as the main social problems of all these small cities.

In medium and large cities, lack of jobs has also been mentioned as a severe social problem, but

mostly in relation to work opportunities for people with no or low formal education that

predominate within the disadvantaged areas. They have low or no access to the available training

schemes, have marginal and vulnerable positions on the formal labor market, and have lower

chances to work temporarily abroad (mainly due to the high travelling costs).

3.1.2Areas with poor access to infrastructure

Within the ten studied cities,11

15 areas with poor access to infrastructure were identified. Two

subtypes of such areas were found: (a) village-type neighborhoods (identified 13), located in

Strehaia, Dorohoi and (b) emergent residential areas (identified 2), situated in Oltenia and Slobozia.

Village-type neighborhoods

This subtype of disadvantaged communities refers to areas of individual houses with small gardens,

usually old city districts with rural characteristics and highly stable population as most residents

settled before 1990. As one interviewee described such an area: 'houses, gardens, horse carts, dogs,

pigs, and cars [...]'12

Village-type neighborhoods are usually located at the periphery of cities. Some of them are highly

remote (being separated from city by natural barriers such as a river, a forest etc.), while others havedeveloped,

13new houses being built closer and closer to the city. While in the remote village-type

neighborhoods appear that older residents, mostly pensioners, predominate, within the developing

areas, the population is rather mixed - new and modern houses of middle-class people 'have rose'

next to old and weak houses of the local people. In terms of ethnicity, the population of village-type

neighborhoods is a combination of Romanians (and/or Hungarians) and Roma, in variable

proportions from an area to another.

11Alba Iulia, Baia Mare, Brila, Clan, Dorohoi, Oltenia, Slobozia, Strehaia, Trgu Mure, and Bucharest Sector 5.

12Case, grdini, crue, cel, purcel, maini *...+ (Dorohoi interview).

13In most cases, these are villages located along or next to a national or European road.


10/163

10

The life style of the inhabitants of such areas is a combination of rural and urban styles. Most

inhabitants own small plots of land that they generally use for subsistence agriculture: 'they have a

cow and some vegetables with which they make a penny on the market, but the money is very

little'.14

In the same time, many inhabitants migrate abroad in search of job opportunities (especially

seasonal work). However, as pensioners from the former socialist agricultural cooperatives (CAP)

seem to account for a large part of the stable population, low-level pensions for farmers representthe main source of cash incomes in such areas.

Most dwellings are legally owned, except for the areas inhabited by Roma, who inherited the house

from their parents/ grandparents but have no legal property papers for the land.

Two main problems are mentioned in these areas: (1) 'high local taxes' (on land and house)

specifically given the (2) lack or severe underdevelopment of infrastructure: 'the endowment is rural,

but local taxes are urban'. Thus, in most cases, these areas have access to cable TV, mobile phone,

Internet and electricity, but do not have the modern utilities otherwise available in the city. They

generally lack gas, running water or sewage infrastructure since local administration cannot

financially support the relatively high costs of such investments. Many of them lack also access to

modernized roads, while transportation seems to being solved in most cases.Investments in infrastructure represent the interventions usually envisaged by the local authorities

for these areas as 'those are mostly needed'. In this respect, 'there are no institutional barriers, just

lack of funding' and community participation is expected to be medium-high, although ' they have no

leaders, must be mobilized, pushed from behind, as people have their own household, they don't

really bother with public issues unless it passes in front of their gates' (mayor of a small city with

village-type neighborhoods).

Emergent residential areas

Two emergent residential areas were identified in the field, which are related to the implementation

of the Law 15/2003 on support for young people to build a personal house ( in Oltenia and Slobozia).

This subtype of infrastructure-challenged areas refers to newly established neighborhoods in the city

suburbs, where the mayoralty leased construction land to local people selected on a set of criteria.

Thus, in accordance with the Law 15/2003, mayoralties from Oltenia and Slobozia provided building

plots of 200-300 m2 to young families (under 35 years old) without housing property but with

possibilities to build a house in two years. If in the two-year period the house is not built and

officially registered with the mayoralty, the land concession is cancelled, the building plot being

reassigned to the next on the list. The law has been implemented, however, with some variation

from a city to another. While in Slobozia, the required house model is large and expensive (one floor

plus attic), in Oltenia more modest house models have been accepted. Accordingly, the two

communities differ. In Slobozia, the neighborhood population is mainly Romanian, employed, highly

educated and from well-off families, whereas in Oltenia, the emergent area includes heterogeneous

population by income, education and ethnicity, selected based on a social inquiry.

Nonetheless, in both cities, the emergent areas were established in the absence of basic

infrastructure: dirt roads, electricity, water, sewerage system are available only partially or not at all.

The infrastructure development process is extremely slow. The local budgets are so low and

suffocated by all sorts of emergencies and the funding necessary for the investments in the

emergent areas are not available. The relations with utility companies are also difficult and

asymmetrical in terms of power. Hence, these communities are highly mobilized (more cohesive in

Slobozia compared with Oltenia) and perceive the entire process as 'a real fight' where they are on

the weak position: the community has to meet all sorts of rules and conditions, whereas the

mayoralty or the utility companies 'have only to gain and do not have to observe any rule even the

14Mai au o vcu, nite zarzavaturi, cu care mai scot un bnu la pia, dar banul este tare puin (Dorohoi interview).


11/163

11

ones provided by law'. For instance, many inhabitants made bank loans for the houses, which have

considerable burdened the family budget, while the new houses still cannot accommodate the

family due to lack of infrastructure. Therefore, on the top of current spending and bank loan, they

have also to continue paying rent in order to ensure accommodation. This pressure combined with

'the fight' with the public and private institutions lead to a permanent tension which significantly

erodes their quality of life.The main mean to address this problem is institutional and requires legislative changes, besides

ensuring funding for investments in infrastructure at the local level. A balanced relation between

state and citizens should be secured through clear regulations: the mayoralty and the citizen should

conclude a contract with clear obligations on both sides. However, these communities 'do not want

to upset the mayoralty' considering that they 'would only pull the rug from under our feet. Asking

them to treat us correctly would not mean winning dignity. They would simply cease the housing

program and construction land would not be available anymore for young. Striving for building a

positive relation with the local council may lead in 1, 2 or maybe 10 years in infrastructure for us, we

hope' (focus group Slobozia).

3.1.3

Marginalized areas

A total of 32 urban marginalized areas were identified within the ten visited cities.15

These

communities may be grouped in four broad subtypes: (1) areas of low-quality blocks of flats often

called 'ghetto' by their inhabitants and by other local people; (2) slum areas including Roma

traditional communities, next to which sometimes hovels (maghernie) and/or improvised shelters

were put together by extremely poor people; (3) modernized social housing and; (4) social housing

buildings in the historical city centre. The subtypes are not exclusive as the large-size disadvantaged

areas may simultaneously include a slum and modernized social housing, for example.

(1) 'Ghetto' areas of low-quality blocks of flats

The ghetto areas refer to low quality housing facilities built before 1990 for the workers of theformer socialist large enterprises. In most cases, former hostels for single workers (cmine de

nefamiliti), but may also include other types of buildings such as former workers colony (old and

ruined wagon houses). A number of 15 ghetto areas were visited and documented, situated in all

cities, with the exception of Dorohoi and Strehaia. Such areas may be well integrated within a large

neighborhood of block of flats (be it in the city centre or not) or may be located at the city outskirts

in disaffected industrial zones.

Most often, ghettos are small-medium areas (150-500 inhabitants) concentrated in one or two low

quality block of flats with a desolate appearance. In Bucharest Sector 5, the ghetto areas are much

larger and very numerous within RFG (Rahova - Ferentari - Giurgiului).16

The apartments in these blocks of flats may be owned by residents or by mayoralty. However, they

are low quality and at low market prices so that represent the sole housing alternative 'with a roof'

for the poor: 'We would all leave from this place, if we would only have had a place to go. We are not

stupid, it is bad, but it is all we can afford' (focus group Alba Iulia).

Usually, apartments in ghetto include only one room of 9-15 m2, overcrowded with furniture and

numerous families, with many children. Nevertheless, inside, many of them are well organized and

clean. In some cases, common spaces are temporarily occupied by homeless people. Bathrooms may

be common (one bathroom per floor) or individual. Common spaces and installations (electricity,

15Alba Iulia, Baia Mare, Brila, Clan, Dorohoi, Oltenia, Slobozia, Strehaia, Trgu Mure, and Bucharest Sector 5.

16

Word play: the names of the three streets concentrating pockets of poverty form an acronym that in the Romanianlanguage means the Federal Republic of Germany. The 15 areas counted in this report include only one of the numerous

ghettos from Bucharest.


12/163

12

sewerage, water etc.) are obsolete, damaged and/or dirty. Utilities either are missing or are

disconnected due to arrears.

The regime of property over rooms and/or of the contracts with utility companies is diverse. In some

ghetto areas, residents own their rooms and have individual contracts for utilities, while in others

the residents own the rooms but have a common contract for utilities, or the rooms are rented from

the mayoralty but the utility contracts are individual, or both the rooms and contracts for utilitiesbelong to mayoralty or to another public institution (such as the County Council). Consequently, in

some ghetto areas the people pay for instance electricity at prices set for companies, which is much

higher than the price for individual consumers. There are also cases in which private owned rooms

are mixed with social rooms and individual contracts for utilities. Correspondingly, in some ghetto

areas, an administrator hired by municipality is responsible for collecting rents and other duties. In

others, the private owners have organized themselves in an association in order to deal with the

collective contracts for utilities. So, from one ghetto area to another the situation of property and

contracts for utilities need to be tackled distinctively.

Massive overcrowding leads to a serious pressure on the block installations, which are not

technically designed to support such a large number of users. As most installations are old andbroken, the basements of these blocks are usually flooded with water and dirt. So, the walls and roof

are eroded and full of dampness, which put at risk the residents' health condition: 'this apartment

block is poorly built, the walls are thin and swollen by mould, that you get frozen hard in winter and

you get cooked up in summer' (Alba Iulia focus group).

Paying for utilities (electricity, water, sewage, garbage) is a challenge for the entire population,

which is however more acute for the ghetto residents. In most visited ghetto areas, the majority of

population has some utilities overdue debts, of which some are historical. For example, in the case

of social housing, the rent to mayoralty is attached to the room in the accounting system, so that

when a tenant disappears, he/she is not followed, but the overdue debt already registered is passed

to the next tenant. The system of cancelling overdue debts that could not be recuperated is

administratively difficult (requires decisions of the Local Council) and therefore many tenantsreceive together with the room a historical debt. For more details see the box 1.

A similar situation is recorded in cases of ghetto areas with collective contracts to electricity. Some

inhabitants leave from the area to another locality or abroad. The utility company has no

responsibilities in recovering the historical debts of the moved away family, but the overdue debts

remain with the block community that should cover it by their own modest means. Consequently,

from time to time, the electrical power is cut off for the entire block of flats, including the residents

that have correctly paid every month. For this reason people feel abused and helpless.

For avoiding overdue debts to the rent in social housing, some municipalities operate evacuation 'for

making people responsible and accountable'. During fieldwork, we witnessed three evacuations

from social houses. The evacuation process involves an impressive deployment of state forces(including special forces - mascatii) against vulnerable people 'with just some junk'. In one case, a

young single mother with a 3-day infant was evicted. However, the housing department of

mayoralty is 'just applying the law', while the Public Service of Social Assistance either is not

informed or does not intervene. It is not clear where the evicted are going, 'we are just thrown in the

street' and the vulnerable persons, particularly children belonging to these families, live a most

traumatic life event with no protection at all. In their case, the human and child's rights are definitely

not observed by the state institutions. 'Let's be frank, here, this is the last road, from here on ... is

nothing, a hill, a forest, nobody knows, and then directly to hell' (administrator of a ghetto area).


13/163

13

Box 1. An intervention priority: Distorted system of overdue debts

for the rent in social housing

For social housing beneficiaries from disadvantaged communities monthly paying of fairly low monthly rents

(20-104 lei, about 4-23 euro) proves to be too heavy a burden. Historic debts are accruing fast, whilst the low

levels of monthly earnings are insufficient to cover the basic necessities of daily life, not to mention the

termination of the historic and current debts. The general rules applying to fiscal debts are also applied to the

rents owed by the social housing beneficiaries from disadvantaged communities. The uniformity of fiscal rules

application may be a cause for the current situation and in such situation, a priority of intervention, as well. In

what follows a brief presentation is made regarding Romanian fiscal regime.

Under the current Romanian legislation, interests and penalties are calculated by the fiscal authorities for any

unpaid taxes, owed to the state or local budgets. The applicable rates are established by government

ordinance or decision. The generic term of taxes is used here to include other budget revenues, including rents

payable for social housing facilities.

Late Payment Interest

Interest is added to any tax unpaid (owed to state or local budget), from the next day that the payment of tax

is due to the date of actual payment. Late payment interest rates are currently set by government ordinance

but used to be regulated by government decision in the past. Currently, the interest rate for failure of tax

payment is 0.04 % per day. Interest is assessed on the unpaid amount of tax.

Penalty for Failure to Pay

The late payment penalty applies to any portion of tax, owed to state or local budget, that is unpaid as of the

payment due date. Starting with the next day that the tax payment is due to state budget, central fiscal

authorities impose a failure-to-pay penalty of 0.02% per day, calculated on the unpaid amount of tax.

As an exception from the general rule applying to state budget taxes, late payment penalty rate applicable tothe overdue local taxes is established at the level of 2% per month, which amounts to 0.06% per day or 0.07%

per day, depending on the number of days each month has. Late penalties are owed for every month or

fraction of the month, until the complete payment is performed and are assessed on the unpaid amount of

tax.

The Termination of Fiscal Obligations through Voluntary Payments: Order Rules

In what concerns the termination of fiscal obligations through voluntary payments, some general rules apply.

When the debtor owes more types of taxes or other fiscal obligations, with different due dates and when the

amount actually paid does not cover for all the fiscal obligations due, the paid amount is distributed by the

fiscal authorities to terminate existing obligations according to the order rule, established by law and

presented as follows in a simplifying manner:

First, all fiscal debts (principal, interest and penalties) included in the fiscal payment facility plan, as

approved by the fiscal authorities and due when the payment is performed; all other fiscal obligations

whose payment is required as precondition for the continuation of the payment facility are

terminated;

Second, all principal fiscal debts are terminated in chronological order;

Third, interest and penalties are terminated in chronological order, as well.

Fourth, future fiscal obligations included in the payment facility plan.


14/163

14

Box 1 (continuation)

The first situation, when the debtor has the benefit of an approved fiscal payment facility plan is rarely

applicable to members of disadvantaged communities that are entitled to social housing services. One of the

reasons is that collateral is required by fiscal authorities in order to approve a payment facility plan and

beneficiaries of social housing services generally cannot produce such collaterals.

Thus, most of the disadvantaged community members find themselves in the second and the third stages of

rent payment, namely they have accumulated unpaid rents or sometimes even inherited them from previous

tenants; such historic debts are accompanied by both late payment interest and penalties.

The debts spiral is unbreakable in such situations. We shall take the following hypothetic example in order to

reflect the mechanism more clearly: A family from a disadvantaged community living in a social house rented

from the mayoralty counts 4 members: two adults and two children; The total net average earnings per family

(including all types of available allowances): 600/ month.

Earnings are cashed in on the 25th of each month; The rent due for the social house: 60 lei/ month; rent duedate: 10th of each month; Despite the fact that the family members have moved in only in the beginning of

the year (January 1st, 2013), they inherited from the previous tenants historic debts representing the unpaid

rent for the entire year of 2012. Historic debt relating to social housing services at 31.12.2012:

863 lei, out of which:

o 720 lei represent unpaid rent for the last 12 months,

o 54 lei represent interest and

o 89 lei represent penalties.

First of all, the family has to pay the rent on the 10th and only receive the social allowances on the 25th of

each month. Earnings are not sufficient to be saved; consequently the family cannot pay the current month

rent from the previous month earnings. From the 10th until 26th (the payment day, one day after earnings are

cashed in), namely for 16 days, interest and penalties are calculated: both for the historic debt and for the rentcurrently due.

For January 2013, the total amount accrued at the payment date (January, 26th 2013) is:

943 lei, out of which:

o 780 lei represent unpaid rent for the last 12 months plus the current month rent,

o 62 lei represent accrued interest and

o 101 lei represent accrued penalties

The current month earnings will barely cover the interest accrued to date but, under the current regulations

will, in fact, be used to cover the rent due 12 months ago (January 10th

, 2012). No part of the current month

rent, interest and penalties are going to be covered. The rest of the historic rent and the current month rent

will continue to generate interest and penalties. And the mechanism will perpetuate the indebtedness spiral

although the family will continue to pay the rent due each month.

Possible solutions include:

1.

the creation of a more accessible framework mechanism of granting fiscal payment facilities to the

most disadvantaged families, including the decrease of collateral levels required in relation to social

housing services;

2.

the urgent settlement of the historic debts related to social housing services: rent debts should not be

bound to dwellings, but to tenants.


15/163

15

An empirical observation: the larger the number of apartments (rooms) with beneficiaries of

Minimum Guaranteed Income (MIG), the larger is the number of rooms with overdue payments to

utilities. These families receive 100-300 lei (20-65 euro) per month as minimum guaranteed income

out of which they need to pay the monthly rent (4-23 euro) and utilities (which during winter may

reach more than 200 lei only for electricity that is about 45 euro), daily food and other bare

necessities. So, even when they earn some additional money from informal activities (which rangefrom casual work to begging, prostitution, refundable junk or small thefts) the indebtedness spiral is

inevitable for these families, even more so in the cases of families with many children. Furthermore,

the informal activities are in most cases illegal and if and when they are caught, they risk fines, jail,

and in any case the cessation of social benefits such as MIG.

In accordance with the employment profile, the main sources of income in ghetto areas include

informal work by the day, or occasional work, child allowance and other family benefits, MIG,

handicap benefits, illness pensions, and simply living from the garbage.

The communities from ghetto areas are ethnically mixed, with Roma people statistically over-

represented compared to the national average (that is more than 2 Roma persons in every 100

residents). However, most local people, institutional representatives or not, tend to label theseareas as 'Roma' areas: 'Everybody tell them Roma, but in my view, only few of them are Roma, they

are poor people from poor families, mixed with each other, Roma and Romanians, or Romanized

Roma. Moreover, they do not declare themselves Roma, for instance at Census, and that is a problem

when the project exact targets Roma, nonetheless they are disadvantaged for sure ' (institutional

representative Brila). Romani language is rarely spoken in these areas.

The population is gender balanced, but is younger than the general population, including a large

number of children. People and many children sitting or playing on the sidewalk in front of (or next

to) the block is a common appearance. The large number of children, compelled to live in very

narrow spaces, results in a noisy and chaotic atmosphere, against which neither area residents nor

neighboring areas are protected.

Ghetto blocks of flats do not offer safety or satisfaction to their residents. Besides poor housing

conditions, these communities face extreme poverty, marginal and vulnerable positions on the labor

market, poor health condition, no or low formal education of the adults. School abandonment, early

school living, school absences are relatively high among children. These are accompanied by rather

expensive bad habits of the adult population such as drinking and smoking, by 'neglect towards any

goods', by 'a lack of abilities to keep goods' as well as by 'a sort of laziness or refusal to work',

according to the institutional representatives. This complex of behaviors and attitudes correspond to

'a mentality' of 'culture of poverty' (Lewis, 1966), which would represent the main source of their

deprived situation. So, mindset changing should be part of any interventions in such areas.

The number of beneficiaries of Minimum Guaranteed Income (MIG) in the ghetto areas is lower than

in other marginalized areas and very low compared to the actual living situation of these families.'They tend to apply for the MIG only in case of severe illnesses', according to SPAS representatives.

In the institutional representatives' view, the main explanation lies in 'a sort of laziness or refusal to

work' as 'they do not want to do the days of community work provided by law'. In the poor people's

view, not applying for MIG is determined either by the existence of a fine or debts at local taxes (due

to which they are no longer eligible) or by a rational calculus: ' If we apply, we would receive some

104 lei out of which they would subtract the 60 lei rent. With the remaining 40 lei we would have

been expected to solve all the rest, food, bills, children and so on. And in exchange we would be

asked to make days of work. Instead, I better prefer to got out and find work day by day or to beg by

the church and so we make it better. I don't need their papers and days of work as long as I'm able ...

if I get sick, we will see, God the good to keep us healthy. They should provide us proper jobs and not

crumbs for the unfortunate' (interview in a ghetto).


16/163

16

Ghetto communities are fragmented between owners and tenants, between the 'bad' and the

'behaving' (cuminti), between the self-declared leaders who impose themselves by the fist law and

the 'weak' ones. They are characterized by low self-esteem, lack of confidence in other people, lack

of trust in institutions (public or private). For example in Clan, a German lady opened a foundation

that has provided free meals to people from a ghetto area. The residents could not believe that such

generous attitude is possible and so they developed a legend as, in fact the foundation wouldreceive from mayoralty some funds that should have been dedicated to the area residents. So, they

developed the most plausible rational theory in their terms, which to place them on the position of

'robbed victims' instead of 'vulnerable victims' in their relation with this foundation.

The degree of community cohesiveness is variable, but overall is rather low. In most areas, they

declare willing to participate for improving their own lives but do not know how to do this: 'We are

not educated people, we need help from knowledgeable people, with a voice to speak to the

mayoralty or to the electrical company, to help us sort all out and organize a bit. We really want, but

we don't know how.' (group discussion in a ghetto area).

These communities are dominated by helplessness, which is accentuated by the constant shame to

live in an infamous area, associated with a strong feeling of being diminished and discriminated byalmost everyone: 'Taxi do not accept to approach to our area', 'Ambulances refuse to come to us',

'Police is not entering here' and so on. Actually, many residents of the ghetto areas hide their

address in order to keep respectability: 'If I tell people where I live, they would just mock me, so I

always avoid saying where I stay' (young from a ghetto). In addition, particularly the tenants of social

housing live in constant fear of being evicted or of losing the room due to overdue debts. In some

areas, the fear is fuelled by rumors that 'big people with big interest' negotiate with mayoralty to

buy and develop the area and as a result 'they will move us out of the city, far away, just to get rid of

us.'

Thus, most ghetto communities do not have the abilities to perform collective actions, but need

facilitation and coaching for several years in order to be empowered and to enhance their human

agency. This process is even more difficult as only a part of the residents are stable, the populationfluctuations being rather high as in some cases the ghetto areas represent a transitory

accommodation for poor people.

(2) Slum areas of houses and/or improvised shelters

Many of the findings presented in the previous section are applicable also to the subtype of slum

areas such as the issues related to social housing, Minimum Guaranteed Income, perceived

residents' laziness or discriminatory attitudes against the residents of these areas. In order to avoid

redundancy, these will not be repeated in this section.

Eleven slum areas were identified in all ten studied cities, with the exception of Strehaia and Clan.

In most cases these areas include consistent Roma traditional communities, speaking Romani

language. Usually these are old peripheral neighborhoods which have extended after 1990 with

communities of very poor people (Roma or not). So, next to low-quality houses (made of adobe), a

lot of hovels and/or improvised shelters (made of plastic and paperboard with some wood

infrastructure) were put together either within the courtyards of the old houses or on the public

domain found in the immediate vicinity of the neighborhood. The houses are placed chaotic, one

next to another, with very small space between them. These types of areas are usually placed next

to a river or to disaffected train tracks.

Not all urban slums are grafts on traditional Roma neighborhoods. Some have been developed in the

beginning of the '90s by local people who lost their apartments due to overdue debts to utilities.

This is the case of Craica zone from Baia Mare. From 5 shelters in 1992, the community has reached

200-250 shelters in 2013, although the mayoralty placed more than 400 persons from this area inmodernized social housing (in Cuprom zone).


17/163

17

Unlike the ghetto areas, in slums the community is spread on a large territory, much more difficult to

be tackled. In some slums there is virtually no infrastructure (at most a tap ensuring water for the

entire area), while in others (such as in Oltenita) the infrastructure is developed along the main

street but is not available in the rest of the area (not even electricity). As a result, many of these

areas are insanitary and highly exposed to environmental risks such as a heavy rain or floods. Due to

the poor construction materials and to proximity (stick one to each other), the smallest fire at adwelling may engender damages for tens of others houses in the area, as it is very easy for the fire to

spread. However, considering the chaotic development of buildings and the continuous expansion

tendency, the investments in infrastructure in slum areas would need a completely different

approach than for a ghetto.

The main problems mentioned for these areas refer to the lack of identity papers as well as of

property documents, besides extreme poverty and miserable housing conditions. The problem of

identity papers was solved in most areas, as the local authorities declared. However, for instance in

Craica zone from Baia Mare even the number of inhabitants is unknown and the Census

enumerators obtained data only from a part of the population selected by leaders and brought to

the area limit to fill in the questionnaires. So, actually, these areas are at least partially 'invisible'

(administratively) as long as they do not apply for social benefits. Consequently, residents claim thatthey are 'meat for trafficking and prostitution' being highly exposed to discretionary actions of

powerful leaders of competing gangs active in the area. Some slums are more 'quiet', particularly the

old neighborhoods, while others are rather unsafe and dangerous, many people being taken as

'slaves' by the informal leaders.

The problem of property documents over the land is common to all slum areas. In the old

neighborhoods, people inherited their houses from parents/grandparents but have no legal papers

on land. Their children also built a hovel as an extension or in the garden of the old house and also

lack property papers. However, as most stable residents of such areas have lived in their houses for

more than 30 years, they are entitled to use it for life. Much more difficult is the situation of those

who live in plastic and cardboard shelters placed on the public domain. This is seen as a serious legal

issue even by the institutional representatives: 'The only barrier [to interventions] is the legislative

one, which doesnt allow us to make them owners and give them legally the right to use the public

domain, which meanwhile have become private domain for the properties they have. Another

problem would be that of releasing identity papers, problem which we solved. The most serious is

that of making them owners, and this can be solved only through the national legislation. A

framework should be created which to allow the mayors to use this possibility' (Alba Iulia city

manager).

Sometimes, in the immediate vicinity of such areas, the municipality placed also some container

houses as social housing. These are highly appreciated by the beneficiaries as they are fully endowed

and contrast strongly with the neighboring area. In some cities, beneficiaries of container houses do

not have to support any running costs, while in other cities the beneficiaries should cover theelectricity costs. As cooking, heating, washing etc. depend all on electrical power, the electricity bills

are quite high, which leads in time to disconnection and so the containers become 'just a box to

keep us away from rain' but with no utility whatsoever.

Inhabitants are extremely poor and a large part of them live from garbage (particularly scrape metal

and recyclable plastic, but also food items and other goods). In addition, many inhabitants

(particularly in the old neighborhoods) receive various benefits, child allowance, Minimum

Guaranteed Income, food staples, etc.

The level of education of adults is extremely low, particularly of women, and children are not sent to

school, particularly girls. Marriages of children aged 10-12 years old are still widespread. The fertility

rate in the area is rather high. So, these communities have an expanding tendency, which is


18/163

18

determined both by new generations of children and by the new comers in these areas, including

perpetrators searched by police.

Usually in slum areas a few leaders compete for supremacy. The traditional model of 'bulibasa' is no

longer functioning in slum areas, as these communities are highly segmented in groups more or less

segregated with different leaders each. The fist law is very strong, but also the shop owners, who sell

on credit and have 'on notebook' the entire community, have a significant influence within thesecommunities.

Participatory actions in slum areas are very difficult to be organized. The main issues to be addressed

require either huge investments (in infrastructure and urban planning, for example) or a national

approach as in the legal issues related to land property. The issue of low participation in education

or school drop-out for children should represent a national priority and it needs to be addressed in

cooperation by mayoralty, local schools, Roma leaders, Roma experts, experts in education and civil

society organizations. Therefore, these medium-large communities, with an important fluctuating

population and an expanding tendency, would require a national framework, well-coordinated local

actions on medium and long term, multiple local actors highly knowledgeable, and considerable

budgets.(3) Modernized social housing

Four areas of modernized social housing were identified: Baia Mare (Cuprom zone), Dorohoi

(Drochia and Dumbrava Roie zones) and Trgu Mure (part of Valea Rece zone). In Baia Mare and

Trgu Mure, former residents of slum areas were moved into the newly modernized areas. In

Dorohoi, Drochia is a neighborhood built for Roma people who used to stay in social houses from the

historical city centre, while Dumbrava Roie is an area developed as part of a disaster management

program. The first three areas are mainly inhabited by Roma population, while the fourth

community is formed of Romanians.

All four areas are presented in detail in Annex 2. The development of these areas was done through

integrated projects, which have combined large investments in new buildings with infrastructure anda series of social interventions. These can be found in the section on Best practices (section 3.2.2). In

this section, we will focus only on few aspects that we deem highly relevant for future interventions.

In all these areas, payment of utilities has remained a considerable challenge for the poor residents.

However, some local authorities have managed to develop systems that prove to be sustainable and

people succeed to cover the monthly running costs. For example, Cuprom facility is fully endowed

with utilities and thus very much appreciated by its inhabitants (463 persons in 135 families).

Residents were hosted for free in the first three months. In the next three months the first payments

(20 lei, respectively 30 lei) were introduced. Then, the bills were gradually raised at every three

months period, up to 100 lei per month for one room, respectively 120 lei per month for a two-room

apartment, of which 50 lei represents the rent and 70 lei account for the running costs. The overdue

debts are low, and people have not been evicted. In order to ensure heating during winter, the

mayoralty provides radiators which are taken back at the beginning of the spring. The area is also

considered a best practice as it gathers a very large complex of social services, a school and a high

school, facilitating the education for all the children in the area.

The second problem is that residents of the modernized social housing areas still live in constant fear

of being displaced 'somewhere out of the city' by mayoralty. This is exactly what happened in

Dorohoi with Drochia zone. Residents of the social houses from the historical centre were 'moved by

force, with trailers, in a gypsy neighborhood, [...] a camp, irrespective how modern it is, [...]

disposable people, [...] thrown away at the bottom of a pond, [...] why didn't they shoot us?' (focus

group Drochia, Dorohoi).

When the modernized social housing is located out of the city, closer to a village than to the citywhere the residents lived and grew up, in hazardous environmental conditions, without proper


19/163

19

information and consultations, perverse effects are most likely to occur. Drochia is an area of new

houses, well endowed with utilities (even better than most inhabitants of the city) but its placement

and the fact that residents were displaced from a multi-ethnic community (city historical centre) to a

Roma-exclusive neighborhood lead to serious questions regarding the impact on discrimination and

marginalization. Even more so considering that the territorial segregation has been also translated

into segregated classes for Roma children at school: ' I raised seven children. They all went to schoolas we lived among Romanians and we have learned one from the other. Now, even in school are

classes for Roma, Roma in one part and Romanians in another. What can learn a child in school if all

in a class are the same, Roma?' (focus group Drochia, Dorohoi)

Furthermore, after the 2010 floods the new modernized social housing neighborhood Dumbrava

Roie was built 'in a different location, only for poor Romanians'. Actually, some ten 'well behaving'

Roma ethnic families were relocated from Drochia neighborhood, specifically 'in order to meet

certain nondiscrimination standards' as local authorities representatives put it. This ethnic

separation of the modernized social housing areas feeds even further the concerns on discriminatory

attitudes towards the Roma.

However, we should mention that both Roma and Romanians living in the modernized social housingfrom Dorohoi face significant difficulties in covering the monthly payment of utilities (besides the

rent to mayoralty). As a result, in both areas some residents have already cumulated overdue debts

and/or were disconnected from utilities.

Actually, people from marginalized communities (ghettos, slums or social houses within the city) are

right to worry. Mayors from various cities presented us various plans very similar with Drochia zone.

They plan to demolish the 'pockets of poverty grown within the city' and to relocate the poor,

especially the Roma, somewhere in nice and well endowed compact complexes of buildings

somewhere out of the city, on a hill, next to a former enterprise, next to a forest and so on. So, some

Roma people have grounds to talk about 'a new, capitalist type of deportation, somewhere in

nature'. In conclusion, modernized social housing should respect all technical standards in terms of

size and endowment with infrastructure, but should also pay attention to: (i) the geographicallocation within the city territory and (ii) the ethnical composition of the relocated population.

(4) Social housing buildings in the historical city centre

The 'historical centre' refer to central areas of individual houses, nationalized during the socialist

period, in an advanced state of degradation, which after 1990 have been used as social houses. We

identified two such communities, in Brila and Bucharest Sector 5 (Uranus zone). Most of these

houses were assigned by the local authorities to the poor families either before 1989 or in the early

'90s and, in the case of ruins, were abusively occupied by homeless people. Thus, these communities

are a combined effect of the housing policy of the communist party and of the post-communist local

authorities. They are rather old neighborhoods, with inhabitants living in the same house for more

than 30-35 years, even being born in that house. Previous studies (e.g. Stnculescu and Berevoescu,coord. 2004) show that these subtype of marginalized communities include large proportions of

Roma people (both self- and hetero-identified).

Except for the location in the city centre, the living situation of these communities resemble to a

large extent with slum areas. So, we do not repeat the issues already highlighted above.

A theme specific to the historical centers relate to the restitution of the former nationalized houses.

As the location is highly attractive for investors and have high market potential, the former owners

(or their inheritors) of these houses made all efforts to recuperate them. According to the Law

10/2001, the former owners (or their inheritors) were reinstated. The tenants have had a five-year

period to find new housing. At this moment in Bucharest, the five-year transitory period is coming to

its end for a rather large number of tenants. Actually, the DGASPC of Bucharest Sector 5 has noestimation on the number of people/ families found in this situation and with no financial


20/163

20

possibilities to secure another dwelling. However, the municipality developed a program for tenants

who cannot afford a private rent through which offer them rent subsidies and/or social housing for a

transitory period of three years. According to a DGASPC director, 5-6 cases per year address this

program, and they do not expect the number to jump abruptly in the near future.

On the contrary, some NGOs active in these areas express high concerns in this respect. The study in

only one such area (Uranus zone, see Annex 2) show that out of about 200 residents approximately ahalf are at risk of forced eviction before the end of 2013. They are highly concerned that they will

end in a social housing from the Ferentari ghetto: 'They throw us in Ferentari. You know how is

there? Here we have done everything to educate our children, to send them to mixed schools, to

teach them music, painting and other such things. [...] We have done all, all that we could and they

want to send us and our children to drugs, SIDA, prostitution, crime, ... to hell.' (focus group Uranus)

Furthermore, according to the municipality rules, some people were left to occupy abusively some

ruined buildings but were not given identity papers as tenants at that address (as the building has

been administratively registered as destroyed). So, there are people who have been living in the area

for the past 10-15 years that have only provisory identity papers on which is written 'without

dwelling', situation in which that person cannot get a job, has no right to medical care, to socialbenefits, etc.: 'I've tried many times to get the papers. I accepted their demeaning comments. [...]

But they probably have some rules that do not allow me to have an identity. So, let's be clear I am

worse than a dog. Dogs are nowadays adopted, have licenses, microchips and passport. I have none

of these. I have ended underestimating myself, thinking at myself as being a street dog. I will hang a

sign on my neck saying I am a stray, a stray evicted from Uranus.' (focus group Uranus)

3.2 Types of community interventions

The main types of interventions in urban development either already realized or foreseen by the

local authorities refer to infrastructure - paved or asphalted roads, running water, gas, sewerage,

public transportation, including new buildings and/or neighborhoods (such as in Dorohoi). All theseactions imply consistent logistic, material and administrative processes which cannot involve simple

citizens. 'The local budget is low, so it must be prioritized, and general population comes first, so first

should be solved the elementary infrastructure and only afterwards to think about the so called

disadvantaged areas' as a mayor explained.

Nearly all municipalities developed some actions in some disadvantaged areas, particularly related

to the social housing in mayoralties' administration. Such actions include from full renovation of

buildings to small repairing. In this respect:

(1) the municipalities explain that according to the law they cannot invest public money in private

structures. Nonetheless, in national programs such as the one for improving energy efficiency

through the thermal rehabilitation of blocks of flats, private buildings can participate as long as they

are organized in associations and they support a certain share of total costs. The ghetto areas

privately owned rarely are organized in association and anyhow the residents cannot support any

costs. For ghetto areas owned partly by the mayoralty and partly by residents it is not clear why the

program was not at all applied.

(2) in most cases, the renovations have damaged at high pace, so that the investment is 'a waste'.

Due to the residents' life style, low education, poor abilities to preserve and value goods. or simply

neglect, say local authorities. Due to low-quality construction materials and messy works, 'so

someone to gain as much as possible' or 'because they see us as second hand people', claim the

ghettos' residents.

(3) repairing of common installations is usually not sustainable as the number of residents (users) is

too high in relation to the technical capacity of the system.


21/163

21

(4) sometimes repairing involve just small works using all sort of old materials from demolished or

old building. Although very useful in case of emergencies, these types of patchworks add to the

erratic aspect of the building and are perceived as a sign of disrespect.

(5) nearly all municipalities have developed in recent years playgrounds for children, but only very

few in the marginalized areas. Nearly in all visited marginalized communities, the residents

mentioned playground for children as a community priority.

Furthermore, investments in refurbishment of a ghetto block of flats or a slum area are highly

visible. The general population usually associate these marginalized communities with undeserving

poor (lazy, untidy, bad etc.): 'these actions are seen as a positive discrimination since areas of the city

where there are villas, where the citizens pay taxes and dues, dont have sewage, street lights or the

road covered in asphalt. The people are discontent because we are investing a lot in these

disfavoured areas from which the local budget collects no taxes and which are sources for the local

crime and delinquency' (institutional representative Alba Iulia). So, usually such investments results

in loss of political capital and not in gains. Consequently, the mayors and the local councilors have

more to gain if ignore the marginalized areas than to invest in them. Considering also the complexity

of the needed interventions it becomes obvious that the rational action on the local authorities' partis to stay away of this 'unrespectable' city areas. Even so, in most studied cities, the local authorities

have strove to reconcile these two conflicting tendencies. The available funding through Phare

programme for Roma or the structural funds (especially POR and POS-Mediu) have been very helpful

in this respect. The availability of funding for investments in marginalized areas may really boost the

interest of local authorities for these areas. All mayors, vice mayors, director of programmes from

the visited cities have declared willing to access such funds.

Much fewer and of smaller scale are the social-educational interventions targeted to children. Day-

care centers, multi-functional centers and other facilities including meal, clothes, access to social

benefits and services, spare time activities have been developed by municipalities, usually in

cooperation with donors or NGOs. Interventions in the employment area (including training), social

economy initiatives, as well as 'soft' projects in the socio-cultural field are even fewer. The majorproblems related to these types of interventions: (i) are small scale, although some were quite

expensive (20-60 persons or children); (ii) are strongly dependent on the existence of donor's

funding, (iii) many have rather high running costs; (iii) impact can be observed only on long term.

Especially for these reasons, some have severely shrunk during the crisis period.

The least numerous are the integrated interventions, which are described in the section 3.2.2 on

good practices. These are complex actions with large budgets. However, in terms of hard impact

indicators, they have not resulted (at least until now) in increased employment, enhanced incomes,

diminished discrimination (against the residents of marginalized communities, be it Roma or not), or

improved public image of these areas. To some extent, it seems that the school participation of

children have somewhat improved, at least according to our interviewees, which is however a very

encouraging outcome. Children should definitely represent the main target of such interventions as

they are the residents who might have a real chance to break the vicious circle of poverty as long as

they get the appropriate protection and support.

3.2.1 Relation between the local authorities and poor communities

We should open this section with the issue of discrimination. Most institutional representatives tend

to describe the city social structure as: 'the Roma, the underdogs, and the normal or civilized

people'. In the spirit of truth, many interviews abound of discriminatory labels, remarks and

comments. Political correctness is still strongly underused in the Romanian public administration and

so the public discourse is inappropriate and aggressive. It is difficult to believe that the local

authorities with such a discriminatory discourse can built a partnership with a marginalizedcommunity, especially when involves a large number of Roma.


22/163

22

Actually many narrations about 'charitable' or 'helping hand' actions of the local representatives

indicate that the institutional representatives infantilize the residents of marginalized communities.

So, local authorities have the tendency to make people of marginalized communities to seem

passive and helpless. Let us provide a common example. In cases of some ghettos with a collective

contract with the electricity provider, disconnection from the system happens periodically. For re-

connecting, any consumer should pay a high price and some additional taxes. Due to social reasons,some mayors are willing to help the community to reconnect before the debts are paid. So, they play

the role of a mediator between community and provider. Many of them put a lot of effort and make

use of their personal relations in order to solve the problem. However, in the process, most mayors

treat the service provider as an equal, but treat the community as an infant. Do not explain them the

process, do not take their representatives to negotiation, do not offer advice and counseling so that

to find a sustainable solution. Instead, they solve the problem as efficiently as possible (least effort,

highest impact). However, the community learns that they are abused by the utility company and a

phone of the mayor can solve anything, irrespective debts and any other conditions. So, with any

new event of such kind, the poor community learns helplessness. This kind of intervention (quite

spread) is not at all helpful because it does not empower community, but teaches it helplessness.

Local authorities should play the role of mediator in such situations because the relation of powerbetween the company and the community is highly imbalanced, but in such a way in which the

community to become more accountable, to develop a sustainable mechanism, to enhance their

abilities to cope with service providers and so on. But also to transmit the company the message

that they are observed and cannot abuse of poor and low educated people.

Actually, the communication between marginalized communities and local authorities is casual,

usually linked to a crisis situation or elections. There is no clear proactive mechanism in which to

discuss plans for the future, priorities, rules, change of behavior. As a rule, the communities have the

problem and the authorities have the solution. Rules are unknown or unclear. That is why most

people expressed a feeling of being cheated: 'when the mayor has the problem to be elected, we

voted him. Now, when we have a problem, they treat us with total indifference'.

This adds to the fact that most marginalized communities are not cohesive and organized but

segmented and marked by shame and fear. Poor education and dialogue skills prevent many of the

community members to contact authorities. They also lack confidence in their fellow inhabitants to

empower them with common problems solving capacities. There is a need of consistent and

complex support to empower them to organize, to mobilize, and to develop a voice.

The participation of the population to projects of community development depends largely on their

trust in mayoralty. This rule has been proved empirically by many sociological studies: the higher is

the trust in mayoralty, the larger is the citizens propensity to participate in projects of community

development. On the other hand, the trust in mayoralty is largely determined by the trust in mayor.

In this respect, the situation varies from a marginalized area to another.

The trust in mayoralty is accompanied by the belief that the communication between authorities/

institutions and citizens is good. The reverse is also true: lack of trust in mayoralty is associated with

the belief that communication between authorities/ institutions and citizens is highly distorted. For

this, people should be well informed and should understand how to use that information

meaningfully for their life. In a project, community participation require intensive information

(priorities, objectives, sequence of activities, desired impact, possible risks and so on), involvement

in all phases, starting with the project preparation, and including participation in the decision making

process.

Most residents of marginalized areas as well as local authorities are rather negative regarding

working with NGOs. However, there are also success stories. For example, one studied community

(Uranus zone, Bucharest Sector 5) has organized itself in an association (la Bomba Studios). Actually,they have started to work with a team of artists since 2006. After intensive and low-cost cultural,


23/163

23

civic and educational activities, the community organized themselves and undertook the artists'

NGOs in 2013, developed an action plan and have organized: a protest, tutoring lessons with

volunteer teachers for children and adults, but also a round table with various specialists and the

representatives of the mayoralty of Bucharest Sector 5.

3.2.2

Good practicesWe present below a list of good practices identified in the field. We have to underline that the

interventions listed here are not necessarily good practices in all respects. For example, observations

regarding the modernized social housing from Dorohoi have been already presented in a previous

chapter. Most interventions lack proper information of inhabitants or involvement of community

from the preparation phase and/or in the decision-making process. However, in the same time, all of

them include elements that can be replicated and/or scaled up.

Area Intervention

Lumea Nou

(Alba Iulia) Kindergarten

Social Economy

projectCooperative for packaging waste recycling

Social houses11 container houses installed there in 2010 and in which live

about 50

Documents

Integration Strategies for Poor Urban Areas and Disadvantaged Communities 2013